Spamassassin cache in mysql - feature request
MailScanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Tue Mar 17 22:42:10 GMT 2009
On 17/3/09 15:42, Jonas Akrouh Larsen wrote:
>> IMHO running the cache.db in tmpfs (on ram) should be faster than
>> mysql over tcp, however it depends on your configuration. just a
>> balance between pros/cons.
> I think you missed the point, i think we can all agree the sqllite db on
> tmpfs is faster, but if u can share the cache between ur nodes, you should
> have a higher cache hit ratio as far as I can figure.
> Whether or not this cache hit ratio increase is worth the penalty of
> querying a central sql server is the question I guess.
> Even if you got a replication setup, so you query the sql server running on
> the local host, it will still be slower than sqllite on tmpfs.
I would be enormously grateful if someone could do a quick and ugly hack
into the DB connection code to try out MySQL on a shared setup, before I
go to the effort of implementing something to do the job nicely.
I personally very much doubt that it will be worth doing. You will hit
the maximum hit %-age of the cache pretty fast even with independent
caches on multiple servers, and MySQL over a network is a heck of a
But it does sound worth someone testing.
Julian Field MEng CITP CEng
Buy the MailScanner book at www.MailScanner.info/store
MailScanner customisation, or any advanced system administration help?
Contact me at Jules at Jules.FM
PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
PGP public key: http://www.jules.fm/julesfm.asc
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the MailScanner