Debug on a production server

Mikael Syska mikael at syska.dk
Thu Oct 11 21:38:52 IST 2007


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.
You mention the wiki ... I can only see 
http://wiki.mailscanner.info/doku.php and a link to: 
http://www.sng.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailscanner/serve/cache/120.html witch 
does not seem to work.

and there does not seem to be anything about tmpfs ... if ... then I'm 
not able to find it ...

But it seems very easy ....

Incoming Work Dir
SpamAssassin Temporary Dir
SpamAssassin Cache Database File

on the Ram disk ... and that should be about it I guess ...

Running Postfix if that makes any difference ...

what about size of it .... 1.5 * max message size or ?
>
> It is a marvelously thought out system, and I have to say that Julian 
> is brilliant.
>
Yes ... very.

// ouT


More information about the MailScanner mailing list