Performance between SpamAssassin 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 and 3.2.3

[Rose, Bobby]

It's not net lag or bad DNSBLs and it's not an increase I rules, because
the DNS queries that I'm using are the same.  Today, I am running 3.2.3
but using the DNS.pm from 3.2.1 and everything is running normally.
It's not DNS caching because that is also the same here and I've been
using re2c sa compiled body rules since the feature was introduced.  My
observations are that the issue was due to the changes in the DNS code
change 5511 which introduced the async issues and DNS completion issues
discussed with ASN and DNS code changes in Bug 5589
 

-----Original Message-----
From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
[mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Richard
Frovarp
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 1:55 PM
To: MailScanner discussion
Subject: Re: Performance between SpamAssassin 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 and 3.2.3

Gareth wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
>> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info]On Behalf Of Greg 
>> Matthews
>> Sent: 15 August 2007 17:56
>> To: MailScanner discussion
>> Subject: Re: Performance between SpamAssassin 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 and 
>> 3.2.3
>>
>>
>> given the relatively low traffic on this thread and my own inability 
>> to spot the performance issue (even tho my upgrade to 3.2.2 happened 
>> pretty
>> recently) suggests that most people (myself included) have hidden the

>> problem behind a caching DNS server. Can anyone on this thread 
>> confirm whether or not they are using a caching DNS?
>>     
>
> I am using a caching DNS server and upgraded from 3.1.8 to 3.2.3 today

> and it does seem slower but I cannot really tell since our mail volume

> is very low and most system maintenance does not even cause the queue 
> to build up to 30 messages.
> I expect the majority of people are like me and have servers which are

> capable of processing far more email than they currently receive so 
> each mailscanner run only handles a few messages so it is quick
anyway.
>
>   
3.2.x has more rules than 3.1.x. This will naturally result in a
slowdown of processing. sa-compile is supposed to make rule checking
quicker, so you end up in a wash there if using sa-compile.
--
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!