https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6633
--- Comment #14 from Mark Martinec <mark.marti...@ijs.si> 2011-09-21 16:03:34 UTC --- > Mark: Now i can see problem isn't with bayes (btw, here is timing with > bayes: timing: > > total 112630 ms - init: 12826 (11.4%), parse: 586 (0.5%), > extract_message_metadata: 23647 (21.0%), get_uri_detail_list: 2087 > (1.9%), tests_pri_-1000: 66 (0.1%), compile_gen: 1178 (1.0%), compile_eval: > 112 > (0.1%), tests_pri_-950: 49 (0.0%), tests_pri_-900: 54 (0.0%), tests_pri_-400: > 15186 (1 3.5%), check_bayes: 15111 (13.4%), tests_pri_0: 41549 (36.9%), > tests_pri_500: 515 (0.5%) Thanks. This looks about right for a slow or heavily loaded machine. My numbers for the same message are smaller by about a factor of about 4 .. 7 each, but the ratio is similar. > It looks bayes isn't bootleneck. My bayes takes about 1.1 s. Giving an average factor of 5, yours is still comparatively about 3 times slower, but it is still in a ballpark. Agreed, your bayes isn't bootleneck. > The root problem is "dying" tcp connection beetwen spamc and spamd. > I'll try to investigate this. Start by enabling -D on spamd and capturing the log of one incident on a file (directly or through syslog), before diving into strace and tcpdump. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
