Re: Spamassassin is very slow...
Well, randomly i checked out headers from a mail i received yesterday and, allowing i don't have a lot of RAM i NEVER saw that scanning was so slow... more than 1 min to scan a 16 lines mail (datas) here is the header : - Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 27779, pid: 27784, t: 85.0446s
Re: Spamassassin is very slow...
Hi, On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 12:26:38PM +0200, Devilish Entity told us: On 6/8/07, Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 03:15:35PM -0700, geist_ wrote: One AMD Unknown 1300MHz processor, 2601.92 total bogomips, 95M RAM [...] Any help should be usefull... Get more RAM. :)Seriously, 95M is not really enough for anything these days, let alone resource intensive apps such as SA. Well i assume that it is really few but it never was as slow... Plus it's only about a little server i get at max 20 mails per day... So... before it tooks about 3~4secs to parse/scan a message do you have network tests enabled, especially URIBL?? If so it might be due to the recent DDOS on uribl.com, which causes the scans to take longer due to DNS timeout?? Sven -- Linux zion.homelinux.com 2.6.20-1.2952.fc6 #1 SMP Wed May 16 18:59:18 EDT 2007 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux 12:42:12 up 5 days, 19:27, 1 user, load average: 1.02, 0.71, 0.61 pgplFLiYFN937.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Spamassassin is very slow...
On 6/8/07, Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 03:15:35PM -0700, geist_ wrote: One AMD Unknown 1300MHz processor, 2601.92 total bogomips, 95M RAM [...] Any help should be usefull... Get more RAM. :)Seriously, 95M is not really enough for anything these days, let alone resource intensive apps such as SA. Well i assume that it is really few but it never was as slow... Plus it's only about a little server i get at max 20 mails per day... So... before it tooks about 3~4secs to parse/scan a message
Re: Spamassassin is very slow...
Sven Schuster wrote: Hi, On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 12:26:38PM +0200, Devilish Entity told us: On 6/8/07, Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 03:15:35PM -0700, geist_ wrote: One AMD Unknown 1300MHz processor, 2601.92 total bogomips, 95M RAM [...] Any help should be usefull... Get more RAM. :)Seriously, 95M is not really enough for anything these days, let alone resource intensive apps such as SA. Well i assume that it is really few but it never was as slow... Plus it's only about a little server i get at max 20 mails per day... So... before it tooks about 3~4secs to parse/scan a message do you have network tests enabled, especially URIBL?? If so it might be due to the recent DDOS on uribl.com, which causes the scans to take longer due to DNS timeout?? There should be no dns timeouts for URIBL currently. The dns mirrors are all up... just the websites are ddos'd. -- Dallas Engelken [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://uribl.com
Re: Spamassassin is very slow...
Hi! Get more RAM. :)Seriously, 95M is not really enough for anything these days, let alone resource intensive apps such as SA. Well i assume that it is really few but it never was as slow... Plus it's only about a little server i get at max 20 mails per day... So... before it tooks about 3~4secs to parse/scan a message do you have network tests enabled, especially URIBL?? If so it might be due to the recent DDOS on uribl.com, which causes the scans to take longer due to DNS timeout?? The website was under sttack, nothing was reported on DNS... as far as i know. Bye, Raymond.
Re: Spamassassin is very slow...
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:58:27AM -0500, Dallas Engelken told us: do you have network tests enabled, especially URIBL?? If so it might be due to the recent DDOS on uribl.com, which causes the scans to take longer due to DNS timeout?? There should be no dns timeouts for URIBL currently. The dns mirrors are all up... just the websites are ddos'd. alright, didn't know that, thanks for clarification!! Sven -- Linux zion.homelinux.com 2.6.20-1.2952.fc6 #1 SMP Wed May 16 18:59:18 EDT 2007 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux 13:34:40 up 5 days, 20:20, 1 user, load average: 1.06, 0.57, 0.45 pgpea5M4dLaww.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Spamassassin is very slow...
Devilish Entity wrote: Well, before all, here is my config : nowhere:~# linuxinfo Linux nowhere 2.6.18-4-k7 #1 SMP Wed May 9 23:42:01 UTC 2007 One AMD Unknown 1300MHz processor, 2601.92 total bogomips, 95M RAM System library 2.3.6 OS : Debian Etch I use qmail + jms patch (lastest version (on 2007/06/07)) and as frontend simscan 1.3.1 using ClamaV Spamassassin (spamd spamc scanning) As theo suggested, you need to get more ram to get SA to run well. In the meantime, you might want to consider these measures to cut down your memory loading: 1) reduce the number of spamd children in spamd's -m parameter. 2) disable the AWL and bayes. While powerful, these two features are memory hungry. 3) if you've got any add-on rulesets, make sure you get rid of any big rulesets. In your case, keep it to a very minimal set. Maybe 80k total of add-on .cf files. 4) dig around your system and disable any daemons you're not actually using. ie: if you don't run a website, make sure httpd isn't running. From there, check your memory load with the free command. Ideally you want swap used to be much less than mem +buffers/cache free. For example on my test box: total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem:492152 390900 101252 0 83896 125092 -/+ buffers/cache: 181912 310240 Swap: 1015800 30484 985316 I've got 30,484 K of swap used. However, I've got 310,240k of memory free when you count buffers and cache, over 10 times as much memory. I try to keep it at least doubled. Swap usage itself isn't bad, as the OS will tend to swap out rarely used things to make a larger disk cache. However, if there's a lot of swap, and not a lot of cache, you're probably overloaded and wasting a lot of time thrashing pages in and out of the swap.
Re: Spamassassin is very slow...
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 03:15:35PM -0700, geist_ wrote: One AMD Unknown 1300MHz processor, 2601.92 total bogomips, 95M RAM [...] Any help should be usefull... Get more RAM. :)Seriously, 95M is not really enough for anything these days, let alone resource intensive apps such as SA. -- Randomly Selected Tagline: /etc/fstab The file fstab resides in /etc. - man page for fstab pgp5ZKhA7vz8j.pgp Description: PGP signature
