Massive queue buildup

[Chandler, Jay]

*deadpan* A workout?  If only I had a massive queue for it to process. :-D
 
The new box was apparently specced somewhere in the third world (Like Maine), so right now I have two boxes running mail:
 
An older box that keeps screaming under the load, and has the massive buildup
 
or
 
A new box that has an incompatible NIC that crashes the server every two hours (new one overnighted, will be in tomorrow), an issue where it hangs on reboot, and a paltry 1 gig of RAM.
 
And to think, I could have been a plumber...
-- 
Jay Chandler
Network Administrator, Chapman University
714-628-7249 / chandler at chapman.edu

________________________________

From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info on behalf of Scott Silva
Sent: Wed 11/15/2006 8:18 AM
To: mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
Subject: Re: Massive queue buildup



Glenn Steen spake the following on 11/15/2006 12:56 AM:
> 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[37903]: Batch (30 messages) processed
>> > in 328.23 seconds
>> > Nov 14 20:07:51 brewer MailScanner[38335]: Batch (30 messages)
>> processed
>> > in 670.92 seconds
>> > Nov 14 20:08:37 brewer MailScanner[38125]: 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
> MS...:-).
>
I have to agree totally. BL's in mailscanner will be the slowest.
I just ran across Net-DNSBL-MultiDaemon on CPAN, and I am thinking about
experimenting with it. You can add it as a zone in bind and make one lookup.
It seems to even drop BLs that timeout or get slow for a short period of time.
http://search.cpan.org/~miker/Net-DNSBL-MultiDaemon-0.17/MultiDaemon.pm
I just have to think out a plan to give it a workout.

--

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!


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 6566 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20061115/ab715bb4/attachment.bin