RE: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
My Dl360 with dual 1.266ghz CPU's, 2GB of RAM, and dual 18GB mirrored scsi drives can only scan a message in 4-5 seconds. At least that was my scan time with a completely default setup, running spamd/spamass-milter, SA 3.0.1, RedHat FC2, and sendmail 8.13.1. I haven't checked in a while (since I updated SA, the milter, and sendmail), but I have a good feeling most of my processing time was spent waiting for DNS responses. Any input into my situation would be appreciated. I'd love to be able to get down to 2-3 seconds, basically cutting my processing time in half! I only checked the timings of the last 10 or so mails to show that it was much faster than the mentioned 20-30 seconds, but especially for you ;-) I now calculated the mean SA checktime of the last 7 days, on the 1Ghz/512MB server. And it is: 3.854 seconds. This server has Suse Linux, postfix 2.2.3, Amavisd-new 2.3.1, SA 3.03, Clamav, Razor, DCC. Network tests are enabled, no local DNS-server, only the standard SA CF files except for a small local.cf. Menno van Bennekom
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
From: David Velásquez Restrepo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Software:
--
A perl script wich takes some file and test it using Mail::SpamAssassin to
get it´s spam score level
OS: gentoo 2005.0
MTA: postfix
SpamAssassin:
--
Using: Net test, Bayes, Razor2, DCC, Phyzor, SPF Test (and everything else
suggested by spamassassin)
Rules:
rules_du_jour:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_FVGT_Tripwire.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/bigevil.cf
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mkettler/sa/antidrug.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/evilnumbers.cf
http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/sa-blacklist.current
http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/sa-blacklist.current.uri.cf
http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/random.current.cf
http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/bogus-virus-warnings.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_adult.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_fraud_post25x.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_fraud_pre25x.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/72_sare_bml_post25x.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/71_sare_bml_pre25x.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_ratware.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_spoof.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_oem.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_random.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_header.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_html.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_specific.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/71_sare_redirect_pre3.0.0.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/72_sare_redirect_post3.0.0.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri0.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri1.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri2.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri3.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri_eng.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri_arc.cf
Runtime:
--
4 processes in parallel mode
Harwdare:
--
Intel Pentium III - 1ghz - 512RAM (pci133)
top:
---
top - 23:03:27 up 10:39, 2 users, load average: 5.47, 5.35, 5.19
Tasks: 62 total, 2 running, 60 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 93.7% us, 5.7% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.6% hi, 0.0%
si
Mem:514036k total, 490044k used,23992k free, 6892k buffers
Swap: 987988k total,49672k used, 938316k free,38012k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND
27220 xmail 19 0 98680 71m 3064 R 99.9 14.2 2:38.51
/progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 1
27603 xmail 15 0 100m 95m 3064 S 36.8 19.0 2:06.76
/progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 5
28171 xmail 16 0 93604 87m 3064 D 28.9 17.4 1:11.20
/progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 4
27516 xmail 17 0 94644 88m 3064 D 13.1 17.6 2:03.70
/progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 2
27308 xmail 18 0 97960 73m 3064 D 10.5 14.5 2:35.46
/progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 3
So, here it goes again the simple, but not short, question:
Q) With spamassassin (and all the above info) you need about 20 to 30
seconds per email message and LOTS of RAM and CPU:
a) TRUE
b) FALSE
Given the way you phrase that belligerent assertion I am tempted to
simply answer true and leave you floundering. It is obvious that for
the way you have it configured you're going to take 20-30 seconds so
the obvious answer is true, for you. Now, if you asked, Am I doing
something wrong? and approached it from that direction you might
discover you can run tests in about 5 to 7 second each for your
machine. I'll be presumptuous and figure this is what you really mean.
For the run times you cite you may have a BL configuration problem,
such as trying to use a dead BL somewhere. One other thing that can
cause this is a DNS problem.
You are using larger chunks of VIRT than I am. I use about 60M where
you are using 98M. I run with --max-conn-per-child=15. You win a
little if you either add RAM or cut down to -m2 or -m3. You do
have a fair amount of cache in use. Once that happens you flounder
around in cache swapping when running spamassassin.
{^_^}
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
Q) With spamassassin (and all the above info) you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message and LOTS of RAM and CPU: a) TRUE b) FALSE My answer is b), False. I have a mailserver here that has a 1Ghz CPU and 512MB RAM and SA on that server usually takes 2 or 3 seconds per message. Like already posted, some of your rulesets are unnecessary because they are included in SA (standard rulesets or SURBL). Did you check 'cat messages | spamassassin -D' to see what part takes most time? DNS time-outs can take a lot of time for example (also checkable with tcpdump port 53). Also your SMTP-server (xmail?) takes a lot of cpu. I've never used Xmail but I use postfix (and amavisd-new) and I think it's quite memory and CPU efficient. Menno van Bennekom
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 jdow writes: You are using larger chunks of VIRT than I am. I use about 60M where you are using 98M. I run with --max-conn-per-child=15. You win a little if you either add RAM or cut down to -m2 or -m3. You do have a fair amount of cache in use. Once that happens you flounder around in cache swapping when running spamassassin. the fundamental problem is that he's not using spamd. rule of thumb: if you see performance issues, and you're not using spamd, STOP RIGHT THERE and start using spamd ;) - --j. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFCjOkeMJF5cimLx9ARAoarAJ9TY6BF9vF8UFt3Dj2qLDQmDg+pdQCgkSrR 8rFpV4XKLKzk+jtjaam5fFg= =8RxI -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
David Velásquez Restrepo wrote: Software: -- A perl script wich takes some file and test it using Mail::SpamAssassin to get it´s spam score level If your script isn't persistent, I'd ditch it and use spamc/spamd as Justin Mason suggested. You'll save a lot of processor time from two things using this approach: 1) spamd parses the rulesets when it loads, instead of on a per-message basis. 2) You'll avoid invoking a perl process on a per-message basis, which is a huge waste of CPU time. The perl processes will be preforked by spamd, and only spamc (a compiled utility) gets invoked per-message. 3) spamc has a built-in message size limit, so you'll avoid scanning messages with large attachments that are unlikely to be spam anyway. http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/bigevil.cf Matt Y already pointed this out, but just to underline it, bigevil will waste TRULY massive amounts of resources on your system. Even the author of bigevil (Chris S.) strongly recommends that nobody use it, and if you go to the website now, it's been deleted to prevent anyone from using it anymore. You should easily cut 30MB or more off the size of your processes if you remove bigevil. In general it looks like you downloaded every optional ruleset in the world and added it to your configuration before you started off. I would strongly discourage doing that kind of approach to any kind of server application, and it's especially true for spamassassin. Start off running SA without *ANY* add on rulesets, then start adding them a few at a time. This way if you add a bloated ruleset like bigevil, the cause of the problem is immediately obvious. Be very wary of any ruleset which has a .cf file that's greater than 64k in size. Matt Y's comments on duplicated rulesets (such as antidrug.cf, and having both the pre and post 2.5x versions of several rulesets) is also valid. Q) With spamassassin (and all the above info) you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message and LOTS of RAM and CPU: a) TRUE b) FALSE a) TRUE, due to misconfiguration. With some tuning based on the tips above, this will readily change to b) FALSE.
RE: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
Q) With spamassassin (and all the above info) you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message and LOTS of RAM and CPU: a) TRUE b) FALSE My answer is b), False. I have a mailserver here that has a 1Ghz CPU and 512MB RAM and SA on that server usually takes 2 or 3 seconds per message. Like already posted, some of your rulesets are unnecessary because they are included in SA (standard rulesets or SURBL). Did you check 'cat messages | spamassassin -D' to see what part takes most time? DNS time-outs can take a lot of time for example (also checkable with tcpdump port 53). Also your SMTP-server (xmail?) takes a lot of cpu. I've never used Xmail but I use postfix (and amavisd-new) and I think it's quite memory and CPU efficient. For a 2.4GHz Celeron with 1GB RAM, SA + Postfix hooked to a mysql DB I second that! However on slow boxes I've seen SA doing 15seconds tests but CPU never climbed to 20-30%. The tests took so long because of a mixture of rulesets for SA v3.x and SA = v3.x. After cleaning up the mess perfomance gain was here immediately. If there are problems with dns, you are advised to use a DNS cache right on the SA box or at least one that's physically in the same network / subnet. Philipp
RE: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
From: Menno van Bennekom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: David Velásquez Restrepo Subject: Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question) Q) With spamassassin (and all the above info) you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message and LOTS of RAM and CPU: a) TRUE b) FALSE My answer is b), False. I have a mailserver here that has a 1Ghz CPU and 512MB RAM and SA on that server usually takes 2 or 3 seconds per message. Like already posted, some of your rulesets are unnecessary because they are included in SA (standard rulesets or SURBL). Did you check 'cat messages | spamassassin -D' to see what part takes most time? DNS time-outs can take a lot of time for example (also checkable with tcpdump port 53). Also your SMTP-server (xmail?) takes a lot of cpu. I've never used Xmail but I use postfix (and amavisd-new) and I think it's quite memory and CPU efficient. Please don't take this as me doubting you - but how in the world are you able to scan a message in 2-3 seconds? I assume you're running some of the network tests, like other people that have posted 2-3 second message processing times, is that correct? My Dl360 with dual 1.266ghz CPU's, 2GB of RAM, and dual 18GB mirrored scsi drives can only scan a message in 4-5 seconds. At least that was my scan time with a completely default setup, running spamd/spamass-milter, SA 3.0.1, RedHat FC2, and sendmail 8.13.1. I haven't checked in a while (since I updated SA, the milter, and sendmail), but I have a good feeling most of my processing time was spent waiting for DNS responses. Any input into my situation would be appreciated. I'd love to be able to get down to 2-3 seconds, basically cutting my processing time in half! .jon
RE: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
Please don't take this as me doubting you - but how in the world are you able to scan a message in 2-3 seconds? I assume you're running some of Personally, I rarely have any processing times over 1 second. Most of mine are between 0.3 and 0.9 seconds per message. I do not run any network tests, however. Stock SpamAssassin rules, the only modifications I've made have been some scoring adjustments. This is on an AMD64 3000+ with 1GB of DDR400 RAM, running OpenBSD 3.6-STABLE, spamd/spamc, and qmail. Benny -- You come from a long line of scary women. -- Ranger, Three To Get Deadly
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
Justin Mason wrote: jdow writes: You are using larger chunks of VIRT than I am. I use about 60M where you are using 98M. I run with --max-conn-per-child=15. You win a little if you either add RAM or cut down to -m2 or -m3. You do have a fair amount of cache in use. Once that happens you flounder around in cache swapping when running spamassassin. the fundamental problem is that he's not using spamd. Well, that's about 3/4 of his problem Justin. The other 1/4 is he's also got a massively oversized configuration with duplicate rulesets, and large unsupported rulesets like bigevil. Switching to spamd would help him in speed, and will limit the memory usage by limiting the number of children, but the per-child memory usage will still be high until he gets rid of bigevil. rule of thumb: if you see performance issues, and you're not using spamd, STOP RIGHT THERE and start using spamd ;) Unless you're using some other persistent daemon for integration that uses the Mail::SpamAssassin API, such as MailScanner or similar. (note: just using Mail::SpamAssassin in a perl script that gets called for each message as the OP is doesn't count. It's got to be a persistent daemon that doesn't get re-invoked for every message in order to be comparable to spamd.)
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
Jon Dossey wrote: Please don't take this as me doubting you - but how in the world are you able to scan a message in 2-3 seconds? I assume you're running some of the network tests, like other people that have posted 2-3 second message processing times, is that correct? My Dl360 with dual 1.266ghz CPU's, 2GB of RAM, and dual 18GB mirrored scsi drives can only scan a message in 4-5 seconds. At least that was my scan time with a completely default setup, running spamd/spamass-milter, SA 3.0.1, RedHat FC2, and sendmail 8.13.1. I haven't checked in a while (since I updated SA, the milter, and sendmail), but I have a good feeling most of my processing time was spent waiting for DNS responses. Using SA 2.64 with bayes, razor, dcc (w/dccifd), Mail::SpamCopURI, and 31 .cf files in my /etc/mail spamassassin I'm able to do it in this timeframe. # time spamc sample-spam.txt snip X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=999.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DCC_CHECK, DNS_FROM_RFCI_DSN,GTUBE,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_50,RAZOR2_CHECK autolearn=no version=2.64 snip real0m2.583s user0m0.000s sys 0m0.000s System is a single CPU p4 celeron 2ghz with 512mb of ram, and a caching resolver DNS on localhost.
RE: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
I have a mailserver here that has a 1Ghz CPU and 512MB RAM and SA on that server usually takes 2 or 3 seconds per message. Like already posted, some of your rulesets are unnecessary because they are included in SA (standard rulesets or SURBL). Did you check 'cat messages | spamassassin -D' to see what part takes most time? DNS time-outs can take a lot of time for example (also checkable with tcpdump port 53). Also your SMTP-server (xmail?) takes a lot of cpu. I've never used Xmail but I use postfix (and amavisd-new) and I think it's quite memory and CPU efficient. Please don't take this as me doubting you - but how in the world are you able to scan a message in 2-3 seconds? I assume you're running some of the network tests, like other people that have posted 2-3 second message processing times, is that correct? My Dl360 with dual 1.266ghz CPU's, 2GB of RAM, and dual 18GB mirrored scsi drives can only scan a message in 4-5 seconds. At least that was my scan time with a completely default setup, running spamd/spamass-milter, SA 3.0.1, RedHat FC2, and sendmail 8.13.1. I haven't checked in a while (since I updated SA, the milter, and sendmail), but I have a good feeling most of my processing time was spent waiting for DNS responses. Any input into my situation would be appreciated. I'd love to be able to get down to 2-3 seconds, basically cutting my processing time in half! .jon I'll describe my setup, and that may give you some insight. It's almost certainly what you think: network tests. My setup uses Compaq ML570s, 4 700MHz Xeon CPUs each, 2G of ram, RAID 0+1 disk arrays. They do virus scanning, spam scanning, and various other mail related tasks which all (of course) take resources. These machines rarely go above 700M consumed, and only really run more than 50% busy (over a several minute window) on Monday morning, or when a spammer has decided that it would be a wonderful idea to hit every single address of ours that they have in rapid succession. The sa-stats routine return the following data: Based on yesterday's logs, the average scan time was 1.44s, average ham scan time 1.11s, average spam scan time 1.62s. The total number of messages scanned was 225,850. It would much higher, but we don't scan outbound email, and also block mail using a sendmail milter derived from rbl-milter, which blocks when 2 (or more) of the RBLs that we use agree. To speed up the network tests, we take advantage of any RBL provider that offers rsync access to their lists (njabl, dsbl, surbl, others), and then (almost) only use those ones. Our scan times went up after I added a few others (sbl-xbl, and bl.spamcop), but those ones are really fast anyway. Each machine runs a local caching DNS server, and the locally hosted RBLs are served by an rbldnsd server. Conveniently, rbldns makes it easy to run a private URIBL, which is occasionally nice. Our site-wide bayes database lives in SQL, because it's more convenient to share among multiple machines that way, and has the added benefit of being faster. I don't run Razor or DCC or Pyzor. A pile of custom rules, and SARE rulesets finish the setup. I've probably forgotten something, but those are the important things. Anyway, I hope that helps someone :) The setup works nicely, with nary a hitch, thanks to everyone who makes it possible! - Austin.
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
From: Jon Dossey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Menno van Bennekom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Velásquez Restrepo
Subject: Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this
question)
Q) With spamassassin (and all the above info) you need about 20 to 30
seconds per email message and LOTS of RAM and CPU:
a) TRUE
b) FALSE
My answer is b), False.
I have a mailserver here that has a 1Ghz CPU and 512MB RAM and SA on that
server usually takes 2 or 3 seconds per message.
Like already posted, some of your rulesets are unnecessary because they
are included in SA (standard rulesets or SURBL).
Did you check 'cat messages | spamassassin -D' to see what part takes most
time? DNS time-outs can take a lot of time for example (also checkable
with tcpdump port 53).
Also your SMTP-server (xmail?) takes a lot of cpu. I've never used Xmail
but I use postfix (and amavisd-new) and I think it's quite memory and CPU
efficient.
Please don't take this as me doubting you - but how in the world are you
able to scan a message in 2-3 seconds? I assume you're running some of the
network tests, like other people that have posted 2-3 second message
processing times, is that correct?
My Dl360 with dual 1.266ghz CPU's, 2GB of RAM, and dual 18GB mirrored scsi
drives can only scan a message in 4-5 seconds. At least that was my scan
time with a completely default setup, running spamd/spamass-milter, SA
3.0.1, RedHat FC2, and sendmail 8.13.1. I haven't checked in a while (since
I updated SA, the milter, and sendmail), but I have a good feeling most of
my processing time was spent waiting for DNS responses.
Any input into my situation would be appreciated. I'd love to be able to
get down to 2-3 seconds, basically cutting my processing time in half!
[JDOW] Jon, I am using these rules from the sources that follow the
names. (I built my own GetRules script.)
99_FVGT_Tripwire.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
99_OBFU_drugs.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/Testing/
99_sare_fraud_post25x.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
99_FVGT_DomainDigits.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/Testing/
99_FVGT_meta.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
88_FVGT_body.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
88_FVGT_rawbody.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
88_FVGT_subject.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
88_FVGT_headers.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
72_sare_bml_post25x.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
72_sare_redirect_post3.0.0.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_highrisk.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_adult.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_oem.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_random.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_spoof.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_header.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_header_eng.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_html.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_html_eng.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_genlsubj_eng.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_genlsubj0.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_genlsubj1.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_genlsubj2.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_specific.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_unsub.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_uri0.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_uri1.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_uri_eng.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_obfu0.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
70_sare_obfu1.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
chickenpox.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
ratware.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
useless.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
weeds_2.cf,http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
Spamc/Spamd takes 2 seconds to scan a small spam message and spit it out.
$ spamc scott
0.00user 0.00system 0:01.97elapsed 0%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+190minor)pagefaults 0swaps
I am using the default BL tests for 3.02. (Am I insane running all
those tests? Probably. Does it work? Excellently. Now, again, am I
crazy running all those tests? Naw - if it works do not fix it.)
{^_-} - Proof that much of the time old age and guile really can
defeat youth and enthusiasm.
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
Software: -- A perl script wich takes some file and test it using Mail::SpamAssassin to get it´s spam score level OS: gentoo 2005.0 MTA: postfix SpamAssassin: -- Using: Net test, Bayes, Razor2, DCC, Phyzor, SPF Test (and everything else suggested by spamassassin) Rules: rules_du_jour: http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_FVGT_Tripwire.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/bigevil.cf http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mkettler/sa/antidrug.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/evilnumbers.cf http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/sa-blacklist.current http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/sa-blacklist.current.uri.cf http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/random.current.cf http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/bogus-virus-warnings.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_adult.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_fraud_post25x.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_fraud_pre25x.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/72_sare_bml_post25x.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/71_sare_bml_pre25x.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_ratware.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_spoof.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_oem.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_random.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_header.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_html.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_specific.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/71_sare_redirect_pre3.0.0.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/72_sare_redirect_post3.0.0.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri0.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri1.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri2.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri3.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri_eng.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri_arc.cf Runtime: -- 4 processes in parallel mode Harwdare: -- Intel Pentium III - 1ghz - 512RAM (pci133) top: --- top - 23:03:27 up 10:39, 2 users, load average: 5.47, 5.35, 5.19 Tasks: 62 total, 2 running, 60 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 93.7% us, 5.7% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.6% hi, 0.0% si Mem:514036k total, 490044k used,23992k free, 6892k buffers Swap: 987988k total,49672k used, 938316k free,38012k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND 27220 xmail 19 0 98680 71m 3064 R 99.9 14.2 2:38.51 /progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 1 27603 xmail 15 0 100m 95m 3064 S 36.8 19.0 2:06.76 /progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 5 28171 xmail 16 0 93604 87m 3064 D 28.9 17.4 1:11.20 /progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 4 27516 xmail 17 0 94644 88m 3064 D 13.1 17.6 2:03.70 /progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 2 27308 xmail 18 0 97960 73m 3064 D 10.5 14.5 2:35.46 /progs/xmail/bin/mx_parser/mx_parser.pl - 3 So, here it goes again the simple, but not short, question: Q) With spamassassin (and all the above info) you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message and LOTS of RAM and CPU: a) TRUE b) FALSE
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
Hi David, A few quick tips to help performance... David Velásquez Restrepo said: SNIP http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/bigevil.cf Do not, I repeat do not use this file, it grew way to big. This type of test is better handled by SURBL. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mkettler/sa/antidrug.cf If you are running = SA 3.0.0 antidrug is builtin to SA http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/sa-blacklist.current http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/sa-blacklist.current.uri.cf Might want to drop these as well in favor of SURBL tests, at least the uri version. http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_fraud_post25x.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_fraud_pre25x.cf Depending on your SA version run only one of the above rulesets. http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/72_sare_bml_post25x.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/71_sare_bml_pre25x.cf Depending on your SA version run only one of the above rulesets. http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/71_sare_redirect_pre3.0.0.cf http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/72_sare_redirect_post3.0.0.cf Depending on your SA version run only one of the above rulesets. SNIP Are you running a caching DNS server? A caching nameserver will help quite a bit with the net tests. So, here it goes again the simple, but not short, question: Q) With spamassassin (and all the above info) you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message and LOTS of RAM and CPU: a) TRUE b) FALSE Correct the above items and see how it runs after the changes. Cheers, matt
Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE (More data to answer this question)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 use spamd. - --j. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFCjBz0MJF5cimLx9ARArJbAKCzDKjKCODdwTWx+OBBCp6lY7B9rgCdEo7C +IGtZtyPQpOgYxB22dSrQIg= =KUEV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
