Debug on a production server

[Stephen Swaney]

Scott,

Count us (the whole team - they're lots of us here now thanks to Julian's
MailScanner) if you need specific help. 

Best regards,

Steve

Steve Swaney
Fort Systems Ltd.
Steve at fsl.com
www.fsl.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info [mailto:mailscanner-
> bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Scott Silva
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 7:41 PM
> To: mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> Subject: Re: Debug on a production server
> 
> on 10/12/2007 1:21 AM Julian Field spake the following:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> >
> > Scott Silva wrote:
> >> 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 ...
> >>>
> >> Julian,
> >> Do you have any of this old material ( like
> >> http://www.sng.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailscanner/serve/cache/120.html)
> >> archived somewhere?
> >> I would be willing to spend some time fixing this up if I had the
> >> content to put in.
> >> I don't want to go from memory, as I will probably get something
> >> really wonky.
> >>
> > Thank you very much, it's greatly appreciated!
> > The old material is now online again at
> > http://www.sng.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailscanner.archive/serve/cache/
> > If you could get it added to the wiki (the useful bits, anyway :-)
> that
> > would be great.
> >
> There is much outdated info in here. I will need to spend more time
> trying to
> fix it up where I can, and post links to parts that I need experts in
> that
> area (postfix, exim, sql, etc...) to clean up.
> I will also try to leave docs as generic as possibe, and not use full
> paths,
> since they are different from rpm and tarball installs.
> 
> Julian,
> Are you going to leave the old cache up for a while, or are you going
> to
> remove it soon? I thought about fixing links into the old docs at first
> until
> I can fix the entire section.
> 
> --
> MailScanner is like deodorant...
> You hope everybody uses it, and
> you notice quickly if they don't!!!!
> 
> --
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
> 
> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
> 
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!