Debug on a production server

[Mikael Syska]

Ugo Bellavance wrote:
> Mikael Syska wrote:
>> Hi,
>>>> There does not seem to be much info on this ... and my scan times 
>>>> are also rather high ... not that its a problem atm ... but it 
>>>> could be in the future :-(
>>>
>>> Please provide more information:
>>>
>>> Hardware
>> OS: FreeBSD 7 ( yes its current, but 6.4 did not perform very disk 
>> with the SAS 5iR controller
>> 2GB ram
>> Dual Core Intel Xeon 3060 2.40 Ghz
>>> # of child processes
>> 8
>>> scan times of full batches.
>> Oct 11 18:48:58 spam02 MailScanner[72858]: Batch (15 messages) 
>> processed in 89.57 seconds
>> Oct 11 18:49:08 spam02 MailScanner[72872]: Batch (15 messages) 
>> processed in 88.72 seconds
>> Oct 11 18:49:10 spam02 MailScanner[72854]: Batch (15 messages) 
>> processed in 106.89 seconds
>> Oct 11 18:49:19 spam02 MailScanner[72865]: Batch (15 messages) 
>> processed in 105.85 seconds
>
> Looks fine.  Is there a reason why you use 15 message batches?
you mean instead of 30 ....

Some performance turning I read on the wiki ... but t does not seem to 
have any effect on my system ... so it will do up to deafult again.
>
>>> Using RBLs at MTA
>> nope ... we have had very bad exprerience with that ... both tried 
>> spamcop and spamhaus ... both have to many FP here in denmark ....
>
> Spamcop is FP-prone, but I've never heard of a FP in north america for 
> spamhaus.
Then you are a lucky man ...

since the server aint that overloaded I dont see any reason to risk 
getting any FP ...
>
>> Its not a problem that I takes so long time .. just saw the message 
>> about the patch and wandered if that would make a diff on my scan 
>> times ...
>
> Ok, I doubt so. Did you put the MailScanner working dir and /tmp in 
> memory (tmpfs on linux)?
no ... its on the disk ... and since every mail could be far too 
important I dont intend to use it ....

// ouT