Debug on a production server

[Julian Field]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Scott Silva wrote:
> on 10/11/2007 12:02 PM Mikael Syska spake the following:
>> 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 ....
> Tmpfs is absolutely safe on mailscanner if you follow the wiki and
> only put the mailscanner incoming directory there. And the speed
> increase is very noticeable, especially in virus and spam scanning.
>  Mailscanner does not actually remove any messages. It sees the
> message in mqueue.in, extracts it to incoming, does its work, and
> if messages are clean it hard links it to mqueue and then unlinks
> from mqueue.in. So there is no chance of mailscanner losing a
> message. If it dies at any point up to the unlink, the original
> message is in mqueue.in waiting to be processed again.
Quite correct.
>
> It is a marvelously thought out system, and I have to say that
> Julian is brilliant.
You guys make me blush :-)

Jules

- --
Julian Field MEng CITP
www.MailScanner.info
Buy the MailScanner book at www.MailScanner.info/store

MailScanner customisation, or any advanced system administration help?
Contact me at Jules at Jules.FM

PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
For all your IT requirements visit www.transtec.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHDoH1EfZZRxQVtlQRAj1wAKDj52XYtvntRRt97x8vVoYqLS0P1gCguUcP
psKt8khEGYH52JMyHMfqPLk=
=8G2Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
For all your IT requirements visit www.transtec.co.uk