[ sorry if this goes to the list more than once, sourceforge.net was
rejecting my mail earlier, but you never know ]
Simon Byrnand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Speaking of profiling, is there anything in the works in the future for
> some kind of built in profiling system ?
Devel::DProf work
At 20:37 7/09/2003 -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
trey valenta writes:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 04:56:45PM +0200, Jochen Tuchbreiter wrote:
> > Did any of you analyze (profile) where most of the CPU in spamassassin
> > is spent?
>
> I ran "spamassassin --lint" through Perl's profiler back in July. I
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 08:37:59PM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
> BTW I would suggest instead profiling spamd -- "--lint" is not the
> case you want to optimize for ;)
Thanks, I'll try that. I realized --lint isn't the ideal test case, but
made the assumption (which might be wrong) that Conf::_parse
trey valenta writes:
>On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 08:37:59PM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
>> BTW I would suggest instead profiling spamd -- "--lint" is not the
>> case you want to optimize for ;)
>
>Thanks, I'll try that. I realized --lint isn't the ideal test case, but
>made the assumption (which might
trey valenta writes:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 04:56:45PM +0200, Jochen Tuchbreiter wrote:
> > Did any of you analyze (profile) where most of the CPU in spamassassin
> > is spent?
>
> I ran "spamassassin --lint" through Perl's profiler back in July. I know
> this isn't the same as checking mail
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 04:56:45PM +0200, Jochen Tuchbreiter wrote:
> Did any of you analyze (profile) where most of the CPU in spamassassin
> is spent?
I ran "spamassassin --lint" through Perl's profiler back in July. I know
this isn't the same as checking mail for spam/ham, but I found that
Mai
> At 04:56 PM 9/5/2003 +0200, Jochen Tuchbreiter wrote:
>>Is there a chance that I may significantly increase performance by
>>omitting some rules that contain costly regexps? Is there an easy way to
>>find out how much time spamassassin spends on each regexp? Do you think
>>that changing spamd/spa
At 04:56 PM 9/5/2003 +0200, Jochen Tuchbreiter wrote:
Is there a chance that I may significantly increase performance by
omitting some rules that contain costly regexps? Is there an easy way to
find out how much time spamassassin spends on each regexp? Do you think
that changing spamd/spamc so that
>
> currently I am looking for options on how to speed up
> spamassassin 2.54.
>
Hi Jochen,
I've been considering the idea proferred at
http://www.advosys.ca/papers/printable/postfix-filtering.html
under "A Word About Performance"
The method shown here is an easy and reliable way to filter m
