RE: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer taking a long time?
So basically, what you are saying is that my volume is really too low to take advantage of the persistent sniffer (and such may actually decrease my performance), and I should stick with the non-service version. Is that right? That is about what I thought (without the details of how sniffer works, I just wanted to be sure). Well, Dan, for the inevitable rush of traffic, I'd stick with the persistent sniffer implementation now that you have it working. If the 2 second wait time galls you, then use your **.cfg file and specify the MaxPollTime: 500 value at 500 ms or whatever you'd like your maximum wait time to be instead of 2 seconds (2000 ms). Andrew 8) This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
RE: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer taking a long time?
Thanks, I will do that. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colbeck, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:17 AM To: sniffer@SortMonster.com Subject: RE: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer taking a long time? So basically, what you are saying is that my volume is really too low to take advantage of the persistent sniffer (and such may actually decrease my performance), and I should stick with the non-service version. Is that right? That is about what I thought (without the details of how sniffer works, I just wanted to be sure). Well, Dan, for the inevitable rush of traffic, I'd stick with the persistent sniffer implementation now that you have it working. If the 2 second wait time galls you, then use your **.cfg file and specify the MaxPollTime: 500 value at 500 ms or whatever you'd like your maximum wait time to be instead of 2 seconds (2000 ms). Andrew 8) This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer taking a long time?
After following through all of this and looking at the .stat file, I think I see what's going on. Now that it is running and producing a .stat file, the flow rate is very low. According to the stat data, about 6 msgs / minute. Note the poll and loop times are in the 450 - 550 ms range. SNF with the persistent engine is built for high throughput, but it's also built to play nice. The maximum poll time gets up to 2 seconds or so (sound familiar?) If there are no messages for a while, then everything slows down until the first message goes through. For that first message, the SNF client will probably wait about 2 seconds before looking for it's result because that's what the stat file will tell it to do. Since the next message probably won't come around for a few seconds, that next message will probably wait about 2 seconds also. If you were doing 6 messages a second then all of the times would be much lower and so would the individual delays. When you turn off the persistent instance, each new message causes a client to look and see if there are any other peers acting a servers... Since the messages are far and few between, the client will elect to be a server (momentarily), will find no work but it's own, will process it's own message and leave. -- This is the automatic peer-server mode. It will always work like this unless more than one message is being processed at the same moment. In peer-server mode, since there is nothing else going on and no persistent instance to coordinate the operations, each message will get processed as fast as the rulebase can be loaded and then the program will drop. When the persistent instance is introduced, it sets the pace - and sicne there are no other messages, each client will wait about 2 seconds (or half a second or so with the .stat file contents you show) before it begins looking for it's results. The server instance will also wait a bit before looking for new jobs so that the file system isn't constantly being scanned. Of course, if a burst of messages come through then the pacing will speed up as much as necessary to keep up with the volume. Hope this helps, _M On Tuesday, August 2, 2005, 3:38:52 PM, Dan wrote: DH No, I followed your instructions exactly (and not for the DH first time). I didn't add those extra values until today. Prior DH to adding the AppDirectory value, the service was taking a minute DH to scan emails; after adding it the scan time went to around 2 DH seconds. I can't get it any lower than that. Initially mine was DH set up exactly as you said, with only Application containing DH the path, authcode and persistent. Today after hearing no DH suggestions from the list, and based on recent list messages DH mentioning the home directory for the service, I looked at the DH srvany.exe doco to find out how to give it a home directory. DH That's when I added AppDirectory. I also saw and added DH AppParameters at the same time and added those as well, though DH they seem not to be needed. DH DH Prior to adding the AppDirectory value, I never got any DH .stat file or any .SVR file in my sniffer dir. After adding that DH value and starting the service those files appeared. DH DH DH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt DH Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:24 PM DH To: sniffer@SortMonster.com DH Subject: Re: [sniffer] Sniffer taking a long time? DH Dan, DH There is no AppDirectory value on my servereither. The DH Parameters key has only one value under it besides Default DH which is Application, and it contains exactly what I provided DH below. Could it be that you tried to hard to get everything DH right by tweaking theseadditional keys? DH Something else. Did you make sure that theSniffer DH service that you created was started? No doubt it will work if DH you follow those directions to a T, and there aren't any issues DH with yourserver apart from this. DH Matt DH Dan Horne wrote: DH I removed the AppParameters value and put the authcode DH and persistent back in the Application value where it was before. DH It didn't make any difference at all in the processing time, DH still right around 2 seconds. I don't know how your setup is DH working without at least the AppDirectory value, because mine DH didn't start working until I put that in, but if it is, I DH can't argue. My server load isn't anywhere near yours, so I DH don't see what the problem could be with mine. Oh well, unless DH Pete responds with a suggestion, I guess I'll just keep using the DH non-service version. DH DH Thanks anyway. DH From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] DH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt DH Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:37PM DH To:sniffer@SortMonster.com DH Subject: Re: [sniffer] Sniffer taking a longtime? DH Dan, DH I seem to recall trying to use theAppParameters
RE: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer taking a long time?
So basically, what you are saying is that my volume is really too low to take advantage of the persistent sniffer (and such may actually decrease my performance), and I should stick with the non-service version. Is that right? That is about what I thought (without the details of how sniffer works, I just wanted to be sure). Thanks, Pete. Dan Horne -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete McNeil Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 4:09 PM To: Dan Horne Subject: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer taking a long time? After following through all of this and looking at the .stat file, I think I see what's going on. Now that it is running and producing a .stat file, the flow rate is very low. According to the stat data, about 6 msgs / minute. Note the poll and loop times are in the 450 - 550 ms range. SNF with the persistent engine is built for high throughput, but it's also built to play nice. The maximum poll time gets up to 2 seconds or so (sound familiar?) If there are no messages for a while, then everything slows down until the first message goes through. For that first message, the SNF client will probably wait about 2 seconds before looking for it's result because that's what the stat file will tell it to do. Since the next message probably won't come around for a few seconds, that next message will probably wait about 2 seconds also. If you were doing 6 messages a second then all of the times would be much lower and so would the individual delays. When you turn off the persistent instance, each new message causes a client to look and see if there are any other peers acting a servers... Since the messages are far and few between, the client will elect to be a server (momentarily), will find no work but it's own, will process it's own message and leave. -- This is the automatic peer-server mode. It will always work like this unless more than one message is being processed at the same moment. In peer-server mode, since there is nothing else going on and no persistent instance to coordinate the operations, each message will get processed as fast as the rulebase can be loaded and then the program will drop. When the persistent instance is introduced, it sets the pace - and sicne there are no other messages, each client will wait about 2 seconds (or half a second or so with the .stat file contents you show) before it begins looking for it's results. The server instance will also wait a bit before looking for new jobs so that the file system isn't constantly being scanned. Of course, if a burst of messages come through then the pacing will speed up as much as necessary to keep up with the volume. Hope this helps, _M On Tuesday, August 2, 2005, 3:38:52 PM, Dan wrote: DH No, I followed your instructions exactly (and not for the first DH time). I didn't add those extra values until today. Prior to DH adding the AppDirectory value, the service was taking a minute to DH scan emails; after adding it the scan time went to around 2 DH seconds. I can't get it any lower than that. Initially mine was DH set up exactly as you said, with only Application containing the DH path, authcode and persistent. Today after hearing no suggestions DH from the list, and based on recent list messages mentioning the home DH directory for the service, I looked at the srvany.exe doco to find DH out how to give it a home directory. DH That's when I added AppDirectory. I also saw and added DH AppParameters at the same time and added those as well, though they DH seem not to be needed. DH DH Prior to adding the AppDirectory value, I never got any .stat file DH or any .SVR file in my sniffer dir. After adding that value and DH starting the service those files appeared. DH DH DH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt DH Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:24 PM DH To: sniffer@SortMonster.com DH Subject: Re: [sniffer] Sniffer taking a long time? DH Dan, DH There is no AppDirectory value on my servereither. The DH Parameters key has only one value under it besides Default DH which is Application, and it contains exactly what I provided DH below. Could it be that you tried to hard to get everything DH right by tweaking theseadditional keys? DH Something else. Did you make sure that theSniffer DH service that you created was started? No doubt it will work if DH you follow those directions to a T, and there aren't any issues DH with yourserver apart from this. DH Matt DH Dan Horne wrote: DH I removed the AppParameters value and put the authcode DH and persistent back in the Application value where it was before. DH It didn't make any difference at all in the processing time, DH still right around 2
RE: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer taking a long time?
I replied to an off-list message from Pete, but for completeness, I will repost it to the list. We can keep it on the list, Pete, if that does ya'. It looks like Pete is probably right in that the service is probably not loading correctly for some reason. There is no .stat file in my sniffer directory. Here are my responses to Pete's questions: Can you please tell me the content of your .stat file. There is no .stat file in my sniffer directory. No file ending with .stat, either. Can you estimate the number of messages per minute that you are processing? Fairly low volume, I guess, around 10 messages per minute. Do you have a lot of extra files in your sniffer directory? Yes, there are tons of old *.FIN files, *.WRK files, *.XXX files, *.ERR files, and a few *.ABT files. However they are mostly old files. Sorting by date, I can see several *.FIN files, but they don't hang around long. There are several still there from each day though (I assume due to daily scheduled reboots according to the timestamp). The last occurrences of the other files by extension are: *.XXX - 7/24/2005 *.ERR - 4/27/2005 *.ABT - 2/4/2005 *.WRK - 12/14/2004 I assume it is ok to delete all these? Does you have a lot of fragmentation in your file system? How do you mitigate the fragmentation you do have? No, we defrag daily after hours using Diskeeper's smart scheduling. This information will help. Thanks, _M NP. I'm sure you saw my other posts to the list, but I'll recap. When I stop the service, processing time goes down to milliseconds. Reenabling the sniffer service (installed per the archived instructions using srvany.exe) causes the processing time to go back up into the minute per message range. I have the service disabled for now. We moved our Imail/Declude install off to a weaker machine a couple weeks ago in prep for replacing it with Suse Linux ES running postfix (and sniffer, of course) on the more powerful hardware. Because the current computer is not as powerful and has become backed up a few times, I was looking at ways to lower the CPU cost per message when I found this. This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
