dccfid performance improvement?

[Ugo Bellavance]

Matt Kettler wrote:
> Ugo Bellavance wrote:
>> Fajar wrote:
>>
>>> One of the suggestion to tune mailscanner by using dccfid, i'm already
>>> setup the dcc, and from spamasassin --list seems the dcc workingfine, i
>>> saw some connection made from my computer to some host with destination
>>> port 6277.
>>
>> Ok,  how is that related to the subject of your post?
> 
> Because dccifd is the other way of handling DCC. Fajar is apparently pointing
> out DCC is currently working.
> 
> I assume that the subject implies that Fajar is wondering what benefit there is
> to adding dccifd, over just plain dcc (which uses dccproc).
> 
> Fajar, there's some modest improvement to enabling dccifd. Normally to do a DCC
> lookup SpamAssassin invokes dccproc as a new process. However, if dccifd is
> running, it will simply pass the message off to dccifd over a socket, without
> having to create a new process.
> 
> I would say the speed gains are marginal, but then again it doesn't really cost
> you anything other than a little ram. (My dccifd has a RSS of 1368 K)
> 
> If you run spamassassin --lint -D the debug output will let you see SA checking
> for the dccifd socket, and see if it used dccifd or dccproc.

Then one should read this: http://tinyurl.com/98txh

It contains the explanation from Vernon, DCC's author.

> 
> 
> 


-- 
Ugo

-> Please don't send a copy of your reply by e-mail.  I read the list.
-> Please avoid top-posting, long signatures and HTML, and cut the
irrelevant parts in your replies.