Debug on a production server

[Scott Silva]

on 10/11/2007 1:05 PM Julian Field spake the following:
> -----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 :-)
You make the incoming mail safe for my (l)users!!

-- 
MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!