Mark Martinec wrote:
>
>> I didn't understand this. Why should have a little effect on troughput?
>> If a mail is processed in 3s instead of 15s (apart concurrent sending),
>> means that I can deliver 20 mail/min, instead of 4 mail/min. If I have
>> 8 processes|core then I can deliver 20*8 mail/min
Giuseppe,
> >> Of these 10s, 7-8 seconds are usually taken by DNSBL SA checking;
> > Note that DNS-based checks only add to latency and have
> > little effect on throughput. Extra latency can easily be
> > compensated for by running more concurrent processes
> > (at the expense of more memory con
Mark Martinec ha scritto:
> Giuseppe,
>
>
>> Hi Mark, while I was trying to figure out and measure the performance
>> of a amavisd+postfix+spamassassin system, to see whether the
>> TimeElapsedSpamCheck was reliable, I was coming out with this patch
>> (see attach) to know which plugin is effect
Giuseppe,
> Hi Mark, while I was trying to figure out and measure the performance
> of a amavisd+postfix+spamassassin system, to see whether the
> TimeElapsedSpamCheck was reliable, I was coming out with this patch
> (see attach) to know which plugin is effectively loaded by amavisd. In
> fact I h
Giuseppe Ghibò wrote:
> Hi Mark, while I was trying to figure out and measure the performance
> of a amavisd+postfix+spamassassin system, to see whether the
> TimeElapsedSpamCheck was reliable, I was coming out with this patch
> (see attach) to know which plugin is effectively loaded by amavisd. In
Hi Mark, while I was trying to figure out and measure the performance
of a amavisd+postfix+spamassassin system, to see whether the
TimeElapsedSpamCheck was reliable, I was coming out with this patch
(see attach) to know which plugin is effectively loaded by amavisd. In
fact I haven't found such inf
