Users of RBL's

[Ken A]

Chris Hammond wrote:
> I am running a caching bind server.  I found rbldnsd but everything I see points to using it
> with local hard copies of the rbl itself that has to be rsync'd from the rbl provider.  I don't
> understand it enough to be able to figure out if it can operate like bind in caching mode.
> I am looking at different areas to try and determine what where my bottleneck is.
> 
> It does not appear to be memory, the machine has 1.5GB of that. 

what does 'free' say about swap in use. 1.5gb may not be enough, 
depending on how many child processes of MailScanner you are running, 
and how much ram everything else you have going uses.

  The processor is an Opteron
> 242 (1.6Ghz) and it doesn't seem to be the issue.  The system is running a caching bind server.
> I also have razor2, pyzor, rules_du_jour (none of the BIG nasty ones).  I am having 30 message
> batch times of 180-280 seconds.  This is a single server running everything including Mailwatch
> and mysql database which I have used mysqlard to try and tune.  I turned on MCP over the weekend
> and my batch times jumped to 680+ seconds.  Obviously that wasn't going to work.  But now, I
> am looking at another possibility.  Drive subsystem.  The server is an HP Proliant DL145 with a
> pair of 80GB IDE drives software mirrored.

On different controllers, or the same?
What does 'vmstat 2' say?
How about 'iostat -x' ?
If you don't have it, 'yum install sysstat'
Sounds like you may just be asking too much of the hardware.
Ken
Pacific.Net


> 
> The volume of messages being moved to the quarantince, db writes and such may just be too
> much for it.  Is there a way to see within MailScanner a further breakdown of how long the process
> takes?  The batch may be taking 200 seconds, but what is the breakdown of that 200 seconds? 
> Spamassassin this long, clamav, this long, move to quarantine, logging to mysql.......
> 
> Thanks
> Chris
> 
> 
>  
>>>> Scott Silva <ssilva at sgvwater.com> 06/26/06 2:55 PM >>> 
> Chris Hammond spake the following on 6/26/2006 11:25 AM:
>> I have been looking at caching RBL lookups.  I have found how to's on rsyncing a copy of the RBL to a local machine
>> but I am wondering if it is possible to just cache the lookups and not have to rsync a copy to a local machine?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Chris
>>
> Running a caching nameserver should do just that.
> 
> 
> --  
> 
> MailScanner is like deodorant...
> You hope everybody uses it, and
> you notice quickly if they don't!!!!
> 
> --  
> 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 message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
>