Debug on a production server

[Scott Silva]

on 10/11/2007 1:38 PM Mikael Syska spake the following:
> 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 ...
I just fixed the maq page to replace the missing content in this section. I 
will work on what I can fix with the documentation I managed to save from the 
old site.
You now have the instructions to get started with tmpfs though.
http://wiki.mailscanner.info/doku.php?id=maq:index


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