Debug on a production server

Scott Silva ssilva at sgvwater.com
Wed Oct 17 16:45:16 IST 2007


on 10/17/2007 2:17 AM Julian Field spake the following:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Silva wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> I'll leave all the old stuff up there for as long as you need it, don't 
> worry.
> Many thanks for your help,
> 
I DL'd a copy so I can look through it on my lappy. A lot of it is very old 
(anybody need to run MailScanner on RedHat 9?).


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



More information about the MailScanner mailing list