MailScanner slowwing down

[Ken A]

Mail Admin wrote:
> I've managed to reduce the load (fingers crossed), I cant get smf-sav to
> compile on my box yet, but still looking into it.
> 
> I firewalled some brazil IP Ranges which took a good load off too.
> 
> Seen some bogus recipient addresses that are really targeted to and rejected
> them in my access database.
> 
> I'm going to try my utmost to get smf-sav working  - would love a sample of
> someones conf file where they have multiple domains multiple exchange
> servers for recipient verification

I don't think smf-sav currently has that ability. You can only define 1 
mailstore in the config.

milter-ahead handles this correctly, of course, by asking sendmail where 
the mail for the domain would go, then using that host to test the 
recipient.  http://www.snertsoft.com/sendmail/milter-ahead/

Ken


> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of G. Armour
> Van Horn
> Sent: 30 April 2009 22:00
> To: MailScanner discussion
> Subject: Re: MailScanner slowwing down
> 
>  
> 
> I was looking at those yesterday because I was running the load average up
> to 10 or 12 in spurts. My box has a Sempron 2200 and a gig of RAM, so it
> does swap when it gets busy. I can upgrade to a machine that's half again
> faster with twice the memory for the same monthly fee, but I'd have to run
> both during the transition and it would take a ton of time to move
> everything over. (It's a webserver for a couple of dozen domains and my
> secondary name server.)
> 
> I told Sendmail to stop accepting connections at load average of 6, which
> kept the load average from trying to get to 50. (Yes, I have seen the la go
> that high, although not on this system. It ain't pretty!)
> 
> I dropped the child count from five to three, which seemed to help - each
> child just took bigger bites and the throughput didn't seem to be affected.
> 
> One thing that looked appealing was setting up a caching nameserver, but all
> the docs I ran into assumed that you weren't already running BIND on the box
> and that you wanted to cache your local network, so I was too confused to
> get that running. (I do have everything installed, just need to figure out
> the config.)
> 
> I did add pause-greet to the Sendmail config, it blocked at least a hundred
> messages overnight. Not a big change, but the price is right.
> 
> I'm thinking about setting up greylisting, it will cut down on the MS load
> and should spread out the surges a little.
> 
> I guess I should have expected things to slow down when I leapfrogged so
> many versions on Tuesday. Now I've got to figure out how to get it back in
> control or bite the bullet and get some more horsepower.
> 
> Van
> 
> Martin Hepworth wrote: 
> 
> See 
> 
>  
> 
> http://wiki.mailscanner.info/doku.php?id=maq:index#optimization_tips
> 
>  
> 
> and
> 
>  
> 
> http://wiki.mailscanner.info/doku.php?id=maq:index#getting_the_best_out_of_s
> pamassassin
> 
>  
> 
> Dropping unknown recipients and having a local caching nameserver are
> generally the first things to sort, then look at the number of children and
> batch size...
> 
>  
> 
> 


-- 
Ken Anderson
Pacific Internet - http://www.pacific.net