Question on reducing load on MailScanner machine
cfisk at qwicnet.com
Thu Jun 25 20:28:17 IST 2009
> The previous thread about this didn't go very far because
> I suspect
> no-one is brave enough to actually try this. Most of us
> just either
> optimise our installations to prevent the queue build-up
> in the first
> place or just add another box - it's the far less
> dangerous and the most
> travelled path. That's also the reason it's not covered
> in the book.
I can add another mx, but would prefer to have a single entry point for email on the network. I think I would upgrade to a single more powerful machine rather than adding additional boxes for incoming messages. We're running a relatively slow single processor machine at the moment and have a backup server that has been powered off sitting under it.
> E-mail isn't instant messaging; a queue of 300 would
> impose nothing more
> than a few minutes delay at most which is perfectly
> acceptable to most
> people here.
I did a typo, the queue is reaching 3000+. Sorry about that. Your point still remains, but you would be suprised at how many of our customers send an email to someone while on the phone and having even a few minute wait annoys them. I'd rather throw hardware at the problem to get the queue down to 0.
> You're welcome to try NFS mounting your 'hold' directory
> and running
> another box on it at the same time; but you get to keep
> all the pieces
> if it breaks and to answer the phone to your users when
> it goes wrong
> and they get duplicate messages delivered to them or if
> their important
> mail get nuked.
There is actually a good chance I will test this out. If I do I will inform of the results.
> So my recommendation would be to avoid this; but if you
> are going to try
> it - do it on virtual machines and test it thoroughly
> (and document it
> for others too if it works!).
How do the various child processes of MailScanner know when another child process is scanning a message in the queue? Does the parent process keep track? It seems like this would logically work.
Looks like I will have to test it =)
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the MailScanner