Question on reducing load on MailScanner machine

[Glenn Steen]

2009/6/25 Christopher Fisk <cfisk at qwicnet.com>:
>>  on 6-25-2009 11:37 AM Christopher Fisk spake the
>>  following:
>>  > I saw a similar post in the archives recently, but the
>>  discussion didn't go very far.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/2009
>>  -June/092018.html
>>  >
>>  > I'd like to expand the question a bit.
>>  >
>>  > Lets assume I have a single server handling MailScanner
>>  (& SA & ClamAV) and the postfix/courier servers.
>>  >
>>  > The MailScanner queue is reaching 300+ at times, giving
>>  a short delay between the server receiving the message
>>  and MailScanner scanning it.
>>  >
>>  > If I were to NFS/SMB mount both the MailScanner install
>>  directory and the hold queue directory from another
>>  machine and startup another MailScanner process, will I
>>  run into issues where both MailScanners are trying to
>>  scan the same messages and cause problems?  Or would
>>  MailScanner be smart enough to know that another
>>  MailScanner process is scanning a given message?
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > This is on Linux 2.6 and ext3.  Filesystems and kernel
>>  versions can be changed as needed.
>>  >
>>  > I have a few extra servers I can quickly put in place
>>  and would rather do that than purchasing an entire new
>>  server for this.
>>  >
>>  > The MailScanner book doesn't have any information on
>>  this type of configuration unfortunately.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Thanks!
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Christopher Fisk
>>  >
>>  I doubt if postfix would like this.
>
> Actually, I see postfix as handling this better than MailScanner.  Postfix just delivers the incoming messages using a header check into a hold queue, one message per file in the queue.
>
> MailScanner scans messages in that queue and delivers it to the postfix incoming queue.
I'd worry about queue file name reuse issues. They would be inevitable, AFAICS.

> What I'm more afraid of (And what Julian says would cause problems) is the MailScanner on server A and the MailScanner on server B both picking up the same message from the hold queue, scanning it, then delivering to the deliver queue and the recipiant receiving multiple copies of the same message.
>
That too speaks against.

>
>
> Christopher Fisk
>

Cheers
-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se