Slow MailScanner

Tue Feb 13 22:46:57 CET 2007

Turn off bayes and see what happens. 

-----Original Message-----
From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
[mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Jay
Chandler
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:57 PM
To: MailScanner discussion
Subject: Re: Slow MailScanner

sandrews at andrewscompanies.com wrote:
> Bayes dbs are typically in ./root or /etc/MailScanner/bayes
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Jay 
> Chandler
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:38 PM
> To: MailScanner discussion
> Subject: Re: Slow MailScanner
>
> 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
>
> --
> 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! 
>
>
>   
Nope, neither location (nor in /usr/local/etc/MailScanner/bayes, since
this is from the FreeBSD ports tree).

So, getting desperate to clear the backlog, I ran sa-learn --clear on
the troubled box, and went to get myself a cup of coffee from the break
room. 

On the plus side, I now have coffee.  On the downside, it's still taking
upwards of 20 seconds per message.

The nameserver config is the same.  The hardware SHOULD be good-- these
boxes are identical, and a month old.

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

--
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! 