Massive queue buildup
glenn.steen at gmail.com
Wed Nov 15 08:56:48 GMT 2006
On 15/11/06, Res <res at ausics.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Chandler, Jay wrote:
> > ov 14 20:07:42 brewer MailScanner: Batch (30 messages) processed
> > in 328.23 seconds
> > Nov 14 20:07:51 brewer MailScanner: Batch (30 messages) processed
> > in 670.92 seconds
> > Nov 14 20:08:37 brewer MailScanner: Batch (30 messages) processed
> > in 643.34 seconds
> > That's not good.
> No :)
Have to agree here. More below.
> If you nee dit sorted , disable spam assassin, leave spam checks on, but
> disable SA, you'll find it will clear the queue in no time.
Might not be the culprit after all. Well, it still might bet....:-)
> Also do you RBL in MS or MTA? MTA is far better
In one of Jays earlier responses (to Brent Addis) he mentioned doing
3-4 BLs in MS, which he found to be "nothing insane". Well, he just
might be wrong, taken that those would _serialize_, much like most
MTAs but unlike SA, and with some poor choices made on which lists to
check in MS... Voila, bad performance here we come:-). At least a
theory worth exploring;-).
As you all know, the MTA (for early rejection) or SA (for
parallellism) is the place to do this (and possibly one or two in
Martin has posted his list of SA RBLs he disables (by setting score to
0) a few times, which might be interesting to you Jay, if you go the
> > Disabled DCC, Razor, and Pyzor, and I'm still seeing batch times in the
> > same general range. I've got RAM to burn, so I kicked up the number of
> > children to 30, and I'm still seeing the same batch times, but the queue
> > is decrementing. Finally, I built up a box that's blazingly fast in
> > processors, and woefully short of RAM, and put that ahead of this one in
> > the mailserver precedence list. We'll see how it handles tomorrow.
> > Thanks for the assist, folks-- I appreciate it.
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se
More information about the MailScanner