At work here at 180 I am handling 200K/day easily with a Dell 2650 w/ twin
2.8 Xeon, 4Gig Ram NFS mounted maildirs running SM, MD, SA & Clamd. The
only bottleneck is a 1999 vintage NetApp which is about to be replaced. LA
~1 most of the time except when the NetApp gets clogged
At 09:20 AM 1
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 08:20 -0800, Gary Funck wrote:
> > From: Michael Lang
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:50 AM
> [...]
> >
> > at my last company we did with 4 machines, 3Mil/Day Messages without any
> > problem. The machines where HP DL360 2G Ram 1 CPU ;)
>
> With Mimedefang and SA?
ye
> From: Michael Lang
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:50 AM
[...]
>
> at my last company we did with 4 machines, 3Mil/Day Messages without any
> problem. The machines where HP DL360 2G Ram 1 CPU ;)
With Mimedefang and SA?
___
NOTE: If there is a di
Nik Clayton wrote:
>> I hate to say this, but switch from SPARC to a commodity Intel box.
>> Intel and AMD chips far outperform SPARC for the kind of processing
>> MIMEDefang/SpamAssassin do. Even a mid-range dual Xeon at 2.4GHz with
>> a couple of gigs of RAM can handle 40K emails/day with ease.
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 14:48 +, Nik Clayton wrote:
> David,
>
> David F. Skoll wrote:
> > Stephen Ford wrote:
> >> I'm running Solaris 9 on a dual processor 220R with 2
> >> gigs of ram and the box is having trouble keeping up
> >> with spam!?!?
> >
> > I hate to say this, but switch from SPAR
David,
David F. Skoll wrote:
Stephen Ford wrote:
I'm running Solaris 9 on a dual processor 220R with 2
gigs of ram and the box is having trouble keeping up
with spam!?!?
I hate to say this, but switch from SPARC to a commodity Intel box.
Intel and AMD chips far outperform SPARC for the kind o
--On Tuesday, January 10, 2006 13:26 -0800 Stephen Ford
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm running Solaris 9 on a dual processor 220R with 2
gigs of ram and the box is having trouble keeping up
with spam!?!? I am using all the bells and whistles
spamassassin and mimedefang can have, minus the v
-ray wrote:
> What if your DNS servers are in the same rack, on the same switch as
> mail servers. Network latency is <200 usecs. In that case is there
> much advantage to a caching server on the same box as mail?
Probably not. In that case, a caching server on the mail box would probably
hurt
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, David F. Skoll wrote:
A caching DNS server running on the same box can help?
Maybe. A caching server still has to do the initial lookups, and
if the cache miss rate is high enough, you'll still have problems.
But in general, a caching server is a good idea.
What if your
Gary Funck wrote:
> A caching DNS server running on the same box can help?
Maybe. A caching server still has to do the initial lookups, and
if the cache miss rate is high enough, you'll still have problems.
But in general, a caching server is a good idea.
Regards,
David.
__
> From: David F. Skoll
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:35 PM
>
> Ah. That screams network problems. DNS latencies can kill you,
> especially if you're using SURBL lookups inside SpamAssassin.
> High DNS latency causes slave processes to build up.
A caching DNS server running on the same bo
Stephen Ford wrote:
> Ok, this is odd. At 7:30PM all of a sudden, the
> server started purring along.
Ah. That screams network problems. DNS latencies can kill you,
especially if you're using SURBL lookups inside SpamAssassin.
High DNS latency causes slave processes to build up.
Regards,
Dav
On 1/10/2006 19:25, Stephen Ford wrote:
> We have a box from esafe that is our primary mail
> relay sitting in front of my box. This handles the
> virus's *but* it prevents me from doing grey listing
> or using doing things at the MTA level.
My opinion is that this architecture is flawed from the
What else is running on the box? Are you running a POP server or the
UW IMAP server by any chance? If so, your performance problems could
be due to excessive "checking for new mail" by poorly configured
and/or designed email clients (eg. Outlook Express).
We've been experiencing high load factors
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:26:20PM -0800, Stephen Ford wrote:
> hitting a max number of files open ceiling.. I'd
> say 90% of our email is spam (we are a small college
> with ~3000 email accounts) with scores averaging 20
> and above :-/
>
> I'm going to add a local dns (even though the dns
>
John Scully wrote:
> If "Oh, and yes /var/spool/MIMEDefang is swap." does not mean that
> /var/spool/MIMEDefang is on a tmpfs, then put it on one. If it is on
> disk you have a huge bottleneck.
In Solaris-ese, swap = tmpfs.
http://sunsolve.sun.com/searchproxy/document.do?assetkey=1-30-3403-1
--
If "Oh, and yes /var/spool/MIMEDefang is swap." does not mean that
/var/spool/MIMEDefang is on a tmpfs, then put it on one. If it is on disk
you have a huge bottleneck.
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:26 PM
Subject: [Mi
Stephen Ford wrote:
> I'm running Solaris 9 on a dual processor 220R with 2
> gigs of ram and the box is having trouble keeping up
> with spam!?!?
...
> I'm going to add a local dns
That's a necessity - a caching-only server is fine
> Oh, and yes /var/spool/MIMEDefang is swap.
Good
> Any sug
Stephen Ford wrote:
> I'm running Solaris 9 on a dual processor 220R with 2
> gigs of ram and the box is having trouble keeping up
> with spam!?!?
I hate to say this, but switch from SPARC to a commodity Intel box.
Intel and AMD chips far outperform SPARC for the kind of processing
MIMEDefang/Spa
19 matches
Mail list logo
