Slow MailScanner

[Jay Chandler]

DAve wrote:
> Jay Chandler wrote:
>> I have two servers.
>>
>> Here's one:
>>
>> aconcagua#  tail -f /var/log/maillog |grep rocessed
>> Feb 13 08:39:58 aconcagua MailScanner[83401]: Batch (1 message) 
>> processed in 6.66 seconds
>> Feb 13 08:39:58 aconcagua MailScanner[83008]: Batch (1 message) 
>> processed in 10.06 seconds
>> Feb 13 08:40:00 aconcagua MailScanner[83989]: Batch (1 message) 
>> processed in 6.11 seconds
>> Feb 13 08:40:03 aconcagua MailScanner[83677]: Batch (1 message) 
>> processed in 6.84 seconds
>> Feb 13 08:40:04 aconcagua MailScanner[82475]: Batch (1 message) 
>> processed in 6.70 seconds
>> Feb 13 08:40:05 aconcagua MailScanner[82359]: Batch (1 message) 
>> processed in 8.74 seconds
>> Feb 13 08:40:06 aconcagua MailScanner[83301]: Batch (2 messages) 
>> processed in 12.81 seconds
>> Feb 13 08:40:07 aconcagua MailScanner[82879]: Batch (1 message) 
>> processed in 7.75 seconds
>> Feb 13 08:40:09 aconcagua MailScanner[82035]: Batch (1 message) 
>> processed in 6.53 seconds
>> Feb 13 08:40:11 aconcagua MailScanner[83989]: Batch (1 message) 
>> processed in 6.41 seconds
>> Feb 13 08:40:11 aconcagua MailScanner[84046]: Batch (1 message) 
>> processed in 6.84 seconds
>> Feb 13 08:40:12 aconcagua MailScanner[83301]: Batch (1 message) 
>> processed in 6.56 seconds
>>
>> Here's the other:
>>
>>> spacecowboy# tail -f /var/log/maillog |grep rocessed
>>> Feb 13 08:38:57 spacecowboy MailScanner[54541]: Batch (9 messages) 
>>> processed in 252.21 seconds
>>> Feb 13 08:39:12 spacecowboy MailScanner[49475]: Batch (2 messages) 
>>> processed in 61.60 seconds
>>> Feb 13 08:39:12 spacecowboy MailScanner[53408]: Batch (4 messages) 
>>> processed in 86.83 seconds
>>> Feb 13 08:39:14 spacecowboy MailScanner[53430]: Batch (2 messages) 
>>> processed in 31.38 seconds
>>> Feb 13 08:39:17 spacecowboy MailScanner[54987]: Batch (8 messages) 
>>> processed in 166.69 seconds
>>> Feb 13 08:39:18 spacecowboy MailScanner[53490]: Batch (19 messages) 
>>> processed in 531.03 seconds
>>> Feb 13 08:39:21 spacecowboy MailScanner[53398]: Batch (14 messages) 
>>> processed in 384.67 seconds
>>> Feb 13 08:39:30 spacecowboy MailScanner[53412]: Batch (8 messages) 
>>> processed in 97.58 seconds
>>> Feb 13 08:39:32 spacecowboy MailScanner[54123]: Batch (2 messages) 
>>> processed in 62.52 seconds
>>> Feb 13 08:39:38 spacecowboy MailScanner[53430]: Batch (1 message) 
>>> processed in 24.16 seconds
>>> Feb 13 08:39:39 spacecowboy MailScanner[55686]: Batch (30 messages) 
>>> processed in 647.57 seconds
>>> Feb 13 08:39:48 spacecowboy MailScanner[56780]: Batch (5 messages) 
>>> processed in 68.93 seconds
>>
>> Any idea what would be causing this?  Same configuration, same MX 
>> priority.  The one with delays has built quite the queue backlog.
>>
>
> Can both machines resolve DNS with the same speed?
> Do you have a caching name server on both machines?
> Is the Bays DB the same size on both machines?
>
>
I've been wrestling with this a bit.

A few questions:

1. How do I set up a caching nameserver?  Can someone throw me a link?

2. I've searched high and low, but I can't find the bayes DB location.  
I never explicitly set it up, but it's apparently running...

Output of mailscanner --lint below:

spacecowboy# mailscanner --lint
Read 759 hostnames from the phishing whitelist
Checking version numbers...
Version number in MailScanner.conf (4.58.9) is correct.
MailScanner setting GID to  (125)
MailScanner setting UID to  (125)

Checking for SpamAssassin errors (if you use it)...
Using SpamAssassin results cache
Connected to SpamAssassin cache database
pyzor: check failed: internal error
SpamAssassin reported no errors.
Using locktype = flock
MailScanner.conf says "Virus Scanners = auto"
Found these virus scanners installed: bitdefender, clamavmodule



-- 
Jay Chandler
Network Administrator, Chapman University
714.628.7249 / chandler at chapman.edu
Today's Excuse: Processes running slowly due to weak power supply