At 10:23 PM 4/7/04 -0400, Pete McNeil wrote:
>
>>
>>Tried the above and got an error message. Tried:
>>sniffer.exe xxauthenticationxx stop
>>and it paused a few seconds and returned to command prompt, so I'm guessing
>>that it stopped.
>
>That doesn't sound quite right.
>
>In the distribution ther
At 10:25 PM 4/7/2004, you wrote:
Since you're up, sorry to ask, where's the beta? Didn't save the e-mail.
Rob
http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Betas/
_M
This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonst
At 09:39 PM 4/7/2004, you wrote:
> My findings are that persistent is offering great benefits, havnt tried
an excessively harsh test yet, but i'm about to do that.
Just ran sniffer in both persistent and non-persistent modes with over
1,000 mesages in the overflow and MaxQueProc at 50. This pegs
Since you're up, sorry to ask, where's the beta? Didn't save the e-mail.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 9:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [sniffer] Final beta (b2) for snfrv2r3
Tried the above and got an error message. Tried:
sniffer.exe xxauthenticationxx stop
and it paused a few seconds and returned to command prompt, so I'm guessing
that it stopped.
That doesn't sound quite right.
In the distribution there are some .CMD files that show examples of the
commands:
st
This worked great.
Thanks.
- Original Message -
From: "Pete McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: [sniffer] Final beta (b2) for snfrv2r3
> At 08:36 PM 4/7/2004, you wrote:
> >What is the best and proper way to setup Pers
At 09:11 PM 4/7/04 -0400, Pete McNeil wrote:
>
>sniffer.exe stop - will stop the persistent server by sending it a message
>file.
>
>Run 'sniffer.exe stop' at the command line and your persistent instance
>will exit cleanly on it's own. [ replace sniffer.exe with the name of your
>executable of
> My findings are that persistent is offering great benefits, havnt tried an
> excessively harsh test yet, but i'm about to do that.
Just ran sniffer in both persistent and non-persistent modes with over 1,000 mesages
in the overflow and MaxQueProc at 50. This pegs out my CPU between 90% & 100%
>Sniffer is adaptive. You can turn the persistent instance on and off at
>will. Simply stop the service - a reboot is not needed. If the persistent
>instance is turned off then the remaining instances will organize
>themselves in the usual way.
I don't have it running as a service, I started the
At 08:30 PM 4/7/04 -0400, Pete McNeil wrote:
>This doesn't make any sense. I have no good theory for this. I am unable to
>create any scenario where using the persistent engine degrades performance.
>In all of my tests on three separate platforms the persistent engine
>produces a significant imp
At 08:36 PM 4/7/2004, you wrote:
What is the best and proper way to setup Persistent mode on a windows 2000
computer and run as a service.
Fred
* Make a backup copy of your current executable (just in case).
* Rename the 2-3b2 executable for your license and replace your current
executable.
At th
>>Pre-beta
>>20040304211333 d9bec001201263026.smd 312 0 Match 89089
>20040304211333 d9bec001201263026.smd 312 0 Final 89089
>>Persistant sniffer
>>20040407042039 d819316c90154969c.smd 100032 Match 94972
>>20040407042039 d819316c90154969c.smd 1000
What is the best and proper way to setup Persistent mode on a windows 2000
computer and run as a service.
Fred
- Original Message -
From: "Pete McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:30 PM
Subject: RE: [sniffer] Final beta (b2) for snfrv2r3
Pre-persistant sniffer my times sometimes got high, but never beyond 3
digits. While running the persistant beta, about half of my times are in
the thousands. The machine also seems to be far more prone to bogging down
under a mail load. This is on a P2/800mhz 1g ram machine.
Pre-beta
2004030421
At 05:35 PM 4/7/04 -0400, Pete McNeil wrote:
> Yes... that seems about right. When a persistent server is running the
>rulebase is almost never reloaded. Only two significant things happen
>during the setup time as measured by Sniffer: 1) Loading the rulebase, 2)
>locating a job to process (directo
Pete,
I haven't been following this thread closely but latest generation SCSI
drives can be below 4 ms seek times as rated by their manufacturers.
FYI, I haven't seen any issues with the persistent Sniffer beta run as
a resource kit service besides some expected brief delays according to
the
I must be getting punchy... but this just occurred to me... Anybody else
remember when a high performance hard drive had a seek time just under
30ms ??
_M
At 06:01 PM 4/7/2004, you wrote:
If
thats all that happens during the first setup timer than you do have some
performance issue on a productio
If thats all that happens during the first setup timer than
you do have some performance issue on a production machine.
My production mail server is not too beefy and does
somewhere around 120k+ a day.
Heres a snipplet from my logs (with persistent
sniffer) for comparison
fde2jqoe 20
At 04:06 PM 4/7/2004, you wrote:
So,
making sure I'm following your analysis: I'm looking at my log file and
I'm seeing lines similar to
snf2beta 20040407020014 D60a4134.SMD
181 30 Match 101576 58 20 38 68
And that 181 figure seems to hold pretty stable. 181 is substantially
lower than the valu
So, making sure I'm following your analysis: I'm
looking at my log file and I'm seeing lines similar to
snf2beta 20040407020014 D60a4134.SMD 181 30 Match 101576 58 20 38 68
And that 181 figure seems to hold pretty stable. 181 is
substantially lower than the values I was seeing prior to the c
The first number is the rule id, the next is the group symbol for that
rule, then the index, then the endex (in final/clean that's the entire
scanned portion of the message), lastly the scan depth. Scan depth = the
maximum number of creatures that were alive during the scan.
reference:
http://ww
What do the number after the Final/Clean
indicate.
- Original Message -
From:
Pete McNeil
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 11:38
AM
Subject: RE: [sniffer] Final beta (b2)
for snfrv2r3
Extraordinary...Compare with a snippet from our IMail/NT4
Extraordinary...
Compare with a snippet from our IMail/NT4 test platform (severely
underpowered)...
snf2beta 20040407140913 D0b86122.SMD 30 90 Final 75148 63 0
6891 68
snf2beta 20040407140913 D0b8614e.SMD 90 140 Final 103691 57 0 8878
72
snf2beta 20040407140914 D0b88122.SMD 40 141 Final 103689 57
Hmmm, log file from sniffer shows significant increase
in performance (up to 50% faster, see below). However, according to my own logs,
the total time that sniffer takes is way longer. During non-persistent operation
about 300 ms on top of what sniffer logs, which could be because of loading
What does the sniffer log show during this time?
_M
At 04:48 AM 4/7/2004, you wrote:
Pete,
Despite my suggestions with less polling time, I can't seem to get the
persistent version to speed up my message processing. I've copied part of
my custom log file below. Bold numbers are the amount of ms i
Pete,Despite my suggestions
with less polling time, I can't seem to get the persistent version to speed up
my message processing. I've copied part of my custom log file below.
Bold numbers are the amount of ms it takes to execute sniffer
(timed by an external program that executes it). Persi
26 matches
Mail list logo
