<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2655.35">
<TITLE>RE: Tuning MailScanner</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Don't we all.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Multiple MX records.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I use one of my MS/SA servers as the master and rsync my configs to the others.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I'd be interested to know if anyone has tried consolidating or using one server as master for Bayes/SA db files.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Would it be as simple as rsync'ing the bayes_path directory?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Tom Sevy [<A HREF="mailto:tsevy@EPX.COM">mailto:tsevy@EPX.COM</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 5:25 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: MAILSCANNER@jiscmail.ac.uk</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re: Tuning MailScanner</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Has anyone attempted or succeeded in implementing a load balanced or HA</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>cluster of SA servers?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>From: mikea [<A HREF="mailto:mikea@MIKEA.ATH.CX">mailto:mikea@MIKEA.ATH.CX</A>]</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 5:10 PM</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>To: MAILSCANNER@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re: Tuning MailScanner</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 04:40:59PM -0400, Gerry Doris wrote:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> I was reading the thread on running MailScanner with lower numbers of</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> children and/or reducing the number of messages/batch to be scanned.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> However, I'm not sure I ever saw a concensus on what is best.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> It sounded like it was dependend on the number of messages being received.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> If there weren't enough messages coming in to load all the instances of</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> MailScanner and only the first couple grabbed all the messages then it was</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> a waste running the other instances.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> On the other hand, reducing the number of messages/batch would distribute</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> the mail load across all instances of MailScanner and would be more</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> efficient.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> If this is correct then the trick is to spread the mail load across as</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> many instances of MailScanner as possible as long as you don't run out of</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> server resources ie cpu load and memory.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> Sendmail is very efficient. The real problems are the virus/spam scanning</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> especially the RBL checking.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> Is the above correct?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>That's pretty much my take on it.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Of course, tuning, even within those very broad guidelines, will be</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>very much a matter of tweaking one thing at a time, hoping that it</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>was the right thing, and wondering how much of the apparent change</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>comes from the tweaked parameter and how much from changes in the</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>characteristics of the processed mail.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I've been doing much the same thing with mainframe operating systems</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>since 1977, and it's still a black art. I used to have a black robe</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>with start, moons, etc., on it, which I reserved for working on really</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>bad problems, but my management disapproved. By the time I became</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>management, the robe was gone. *sigh*</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Mike Andrews</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>mikea@mikea.ath.cx</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Tired old sysadmin since 1964</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>