bdc and clamscan always high on top

[Steve Campbell]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Martin Hepworth" <martinh at solid-state-logic.com>
To: "'MailScanner discussion'" <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 11:48 AM
Subject: RE: bdc and clamscan always high on top


> Steve
>
> How many of these 40k emails are for valid users????

Not very many. Sendmail kicks most of them out. I guess a milter (ahead, or 
something) would work here. But the problem is not really how many, but is 
the bdc/clamscan high CPU normal?
>
> I presume you're cleaning the Mailwatch DB out on a daily basis to remove
> old data???

Yes, there are about 392K rows in the DB. I keep nine days work.

>
> --
> Martin Hepworth
> Snr Systems Administrator
> Solid State Logic
> Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300

Thanks for the interest and questions.

Steve
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info [mailto:mailscanner-
>> bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Steve Campbell
>> Sent: 05 June 2006 15:50
>> To: MailScanner mailing list
>> Subject: bdc and clamscan always high on top
>>
>> I'm not sure if this is normal, but bdc and clamscan always seems to be 
>> on
>> the top of top's list now. They usually state something around 20% CPU 
>> for
>> each of the most active processes for both. My load average is around 
>> 5-6,
>> and swapping is minimal, although memory usage is almost 100%. I know 
>> more
>> RAM would help, but ....
>>
>> My main concern is using Mailwatch, where it really takes time to load 
>> all
>> but the "Recent messages" page. I thought this might be MySQL related, 
>> but
>> this doesn't show as a problem anywhere. The machine does keep up. I get
>> around 40K messages per day.
>>
>> Would lowering or raising the Max Children benefit this condition, in
>> anyone's opinion? I can see advantages in both lowering and raising it
>> from
>> 5. This is a hyperthreaded machine, showing two CPUs on top.
>>
>> Due to the recent discussion about Clam config files, I thought I might
>> ask -  is there something to speed up the Clam and Bitdefender stuff 
>> other
>> than the Clam module? Does it sound like the number of messages being
>> scanned is too high per process?
>>
>> This is not the latest Clam, but the prior release, and the free
>> Bitdefender
>> for Linux.
>>
>>
>> Steve Campbell
>> campbell at cnpapers.com
>> Charleston Newspapers
>>
>>
>> --
>> MailScanner mailing list
>> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
>> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
>>
>> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
>>
>> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!
>
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the system manager.
>
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept
> for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean.
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> -- 
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
>
> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
>
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!
>