> >>Yes, if I telnet spa.yourdomain.com, then telnet spa.yourdomain.com I
> >>will connect first to one server, then the next. That how ever is not
> >>fail over, that's dns round robin. If machine one really failed, then
> >>queries to that machine would still fail (I think, haven't tested it
--- Dan Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can "try" it with one machine, multiple IP's/multiple spamd's with
> the -i.
Mmm, interesting idea, but why would anyone do that instead of just using a
single instance of spamd and increasing max-children?
Oh--! You were just giving me a way to
> Dan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: email builder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 6:16 PM
> To: Bowie Bailey; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: multiple spamd machines
>
>
&
--- Rick Macdougall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> email builder wrote:
> > OK, distilling this conversation a little bit, can anyone comment on
> this:
> >
> >
> >>>You are darn close there... What you want is
> >>>
> &g
--- Bowie Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: email builder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > OK, distilling this conversation a little bit, can anyone comment
> > on this:
> >
> > > > You are darn close there... What you want
OK, distilling this conversation a little bit, can anyone comment on this:
> > You are darn close there... What you want is
> >
> > /usr/bin/spamc -u-d spa.yourdomain.com -H
> >
> > And spa.yourdomain.com has two ptr records, one to 127.0.0.1 and the
> > other to 123.45.6.789
> >
> > in
Anyone?
> How is it possible to use the report_hostname template setting to pick up
> on
> virtual domains? Or is it? Mine always uses the actual domain name of the
> machine itself; I'd rather use the virtual host name from the domain of the
> target user.
>
>
> > On 7/11/04 7:55 AM, "Theo Va
How is it possible to use the report_hostname template setting to pick up on
virtual domains? Or is it? Mine always uses the actual domain name of the
machine itself; I'd rather use the virtual host name from the domain of the
target user.
> On 7/11/04 7:55 AM, "Theo Van Dinter" <[EMAIL PROTECT
Thanks so much for your reply. Further thoughts/questions inline below:
> > Since I have not been able to tackle the excessive CPU usage of spamd
> on a
> > single machine (see the thread "spamd still burning CPU in 3.0.1"), I am
> > hoping that the people who said I am simply maxing out spamd'
Hello,
Since I have not been able to tackle the excessive CPU usage of spamd on a
single machine (see the thread "spamd still burning CPU in 3.0.1"), I am
hoping that the people who said I am simply maxing out spamd's capabilities
are right: I am moving to a multiple box solution. I will be pu
> > > Out of addled curiosity (not pointing specifically at you David) why
> has
> > > nobody mentioned the traditional "SpamAssassin is slow" mantra, "Try
> > > more memory?"
> >
> > I think because memory does not seem to be an issue for me. I have 1GB
> RAM
> > and each spamd process sits at a
> Out of addled curiosity (not pointing specifically at you David) why has
> nobody mentioned the traditional "SpamAssassin is slow" mantra, "Try
> more memory?"
I think because memory does not seem to be an issue for me. I have 1GB RAM
and each spamd process sits at around 34MB. I don't have a
Kurt,
> I've lost track of your original post, but I do have a quick question.
>
> From what little I do remember of your postings, I believe that you were
> running SA on FreeBSD.
Sorry, no, this is a Fedora Core 2 machine
> From reading several FreeBSD lists, HT is problematic, and often red
--- Gavin Cato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is what I don't get. If you can handle an avg of 500/hr, which
> oh,
> > wait... that's per hour. Ah, OK. That's 8/min. I'm doing an avg of
> 48/min
> > (255/min max). But I swear someone else had a throughput higher than
> that
> > who
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:09:57AM -0400, Jeff Koch wrote:
> >
> > We figure that we'd have to reduce the email load on each server by 50%
> in
> > order to use SA 3.0 and thereby need twice as many servers. However,
> we're
> > going to wait until the SA developers take the memory and load i
ernet, point your browser at http://www.perl.com/, the Perl Home Page.
Thanks!
> - RE
>
> -Original Message-
> From: email builder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 23 October, 2004 7:06 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: spamd still bu
lem. Maybe if enough users complain they'll do
> some high volume production test comparisons of 3.0 with previous versions
> and sort out the problem.
This is disturbing. I'm surprised the CPU thing has not been a topic of
conversation (I see the memory one is) does anyone know
> >>I'd recommend upgrading to a dual server or perhaps putting in a second
> >>server with round robin DNS (or if you can do it, a load balancer).
> >
> >
> > also, what do people think about a multiple cpu machine vs more than one
> > machine? dumb question? (two machines always are faster th
> I'd recommend upgrading to a dual server or perhaps putting in a second
> server with round robin DNS (or if you can do it, a load balancer).
also, what do people think about a multiple cpu machine vs more than one
machine? dumb question? (two machines always are faster than one dual-cpu
mach
> email builder wrote:
> >>email builder wrote:
> >>How much email are you processing ?
> >
> >
> > Well, just the other day we had an average of 48 msgs/min (max 255/min)
> get
> > run
> > through SA. Can't say today yet because ca
> email builder wrote:
> >>BTW, SpamAssassin *is* CPU-intensive. It's designed that way ;)
> >
> >
> > But not as CPU intensive as I am seeing. According to others on this
> list, I
> > should not be seeing a mere five spamd children completely dom
> Does spamd burn up the CPU if you do not have the Bayes turned on?
> If not, then I humbly suggest to turn off the Bayes in SA and
> use bogofilter to handle the Bayes processing.
Unfortunately, with use_bayes set to zero, spamd children average probably
around 20% cpu and bounce regularly into
> BTW, SpamAssassin *is* CPU-intensive. It's designed that way ;)
But not as CPU intensive as I am seeing. According to others on this list, I
should not be seeing a mere five spamd children completely dominating a
2.8GHz(HT) processor.
> Tim B writes:
> > email builder wrote
--- Tim B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> email builder wrote:
>
> > I hurried out and installed 3.0.1, thinking one of those memory/language
> > improvements mentioned in the release notes were going to be my savior...
> >
> > Sadly, 3.0.1's spamd has th
--- Tim B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> email builder wrote:
> > I hurried out and installed 3.0.1, thinking one of those memory/language
> > improvements mentioned in the release notes were going to be my savior...
> >
> > Sadly, 3.0.1's spamd has the s
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>Normal system load averages 0.15, with about 5 spamd processes running.
> >>Peak load varies, very occasionally going above 8, with around 30 spamd
> >>processes at once. This system has been processing about 20,000 messages
> >>per day lately.
> >
> >
> > Thank
I hurried out and installed 3.0.1, thinking one of those memory/language
improvements mentioned in the release notes were going to be my savior...
Sadly, 3.0.1's spamd has the same CPU-intensive behavior here. I am s at
a loss; tried everything I've read... spent days reading... please, anyon
> >>Normal system load averages 0.15, with about 5 spamd processes running.
> >>Peak load varies, very occasionally going above 8, with around 30 spamd
> >>processes at once. This system has been processing about 20,000 messages
> >>per day lately.
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the good info. I'm glad
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > We are using Courier-MTA, which includes pop, imap, and webmail in a
> > > single package. ClamAV is called from amavisd-new and SA is called
> > > (as spamc/spamd) by maildrop prior to delivery.
> >
> > What kind of traffic do you handle? What is your typical s
> We currently use MailScanner/ClamAV/sendmail on our Gateway with three
> toasters running qmail/vpopmail calling SA from a script added to the
> users .qmail file. All Maildirs are NFS mounted as are qmail control files.
NFS 4 by chance? Do you have any opinions on its security and
speed/per
> We are using Courier-MTA, which includes pop, imap, and webmail in a
> single package. ClamAV is called from amavisd-new and SA is called
> (as spamc/spamd) by maildrop prior to delivery.
What kind of traffic do you handle? What is your typical system load? How
much CPU does
spamd take? Wha
> We are using 2 fedora core 2 machines running dual sendmail with
> amavisd-new, spamassassin 3.0, clamav, delivered to a database using dbmail,
> all with individual user preferences. For frontend machines. And 2 fedora
> core 2 machines running sendmail, dbmail-imapd and dbmail-pop3d, along wi
Hooray! Just when I was thinking about how to start another thread asking the
same
question... I am pleased that this thread can continue. :)
Read below...
> > Thanks so much. Unfortunately, I don't see much change in my CPU usage by
> spamd. I am
> > at a loss, as I've spent almost an enti
Thanks so much. Unfortunately, I don't see much change in my CPU usage by
spamd. I am
at a loss, as I've spent almost an entire day reading old mailing list threads
and the
wiki, but no one has seemed to post anything concrete as to why spamd would eat
so much
CPU (in my case, it spikes to as
> > I have been under the apparently false presumption that spamd prcessed
> > its messages in memory (perhaps this explains why each spamd process can
> > oft take up to 25% cpu?). I recently looked in /tmp and found lots of
> > left over spamassassin..xx.tmp files (the first four x's are
Greetings,
I have been under the apparently false presumption that spamd prcessed its
messages in
memory (perhaps this explains why each spamd process can oft take up to 25%
cpu?). I
recently looked in /tmp and found lots of left over
spamassassin..xx.tmp files
(the first four x's ar
101 - 136 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
