AW: Not completely OT: Does this affect MailScanner users on RH/FC/CentOS?

[Glenn Steen]

2008/8/29 Richard Frovarp <richard.frovarp at sendit.nodak.edu>

> Ken A wrote:
>
>> Richard Frovarp wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Neuman van der Hans wrote:
>>>
>>>> How much of an improvement? Can you describe both the test and the
>>>> manual perl compile process and put it up on the wiki?
>>>>
>>>
>>  The test doesn't use MailScanner. We have RHEL 4 and RHEL 5 boxes running
>>> MS. Doing the test RHEL 4 is fine, and RHEL5 isn't. However, we have not
>>> noticed any performance difference between the two releases when it comes to
>>> running MS.
>>>
>>
>> Same here, but with FC6 buggy perl. It would be nice to know if
>> MailScanner is affected in any significant way. Why upgrade perl for new
>> bugs when the old ones work fine?
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>  Well my testing and other testing reported back here, seems to indicate
> there isn't a problem. No one has said anything on the SA list. Run that
> test code and add an extra 0 onto the end. RHEL 4 finished in about 4
> seconds. RHEL 5 on a beefier box was only half done after 40 minutes and was
> slowing down. It would appear that when this one hits, it hits very hard.
>
> Richard

Yikes!

Well then. Are we to guess there is no use of bless/overload in the MS code
and all it's depended upon modules? Seems unlikely, but perhaps true. I
wonder if even Jules knows:).

Cheers
-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20080830/57e4a1a7/attachment-0001.html