--On Tuesday, September 14, 2004 9:36 AM -0400 scohen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A) Does SA 3.0 use less memory/CPU then SA 2.64?
I saw some memory leaks corrected on the dev list. Might be important in
spamd.
Can you also get a performance boost ifyou use the unix socket instead of
the tcp socket?
Someone mentioned this feature back in teh 2.6x era, but I could never get
it to work.
This assumes that spamd is running on the local machine.
Chris Blaise said:
>
> The biggest performance benefit you
> Thanks for the input. I guess I should mention that we will likely be
> running this through mimedefang or some other sendmail milter instead of
> procmail and spamd. I understand that mimedefang has its own overhead and
> memory issues but I was wondering about the SA component. The reason I am
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Chris Blaise wrote:
>
> The biggest performance benefit you'll see is if you use spamd. The
> pre-forking of children makes an incredible amount of difference.
>
> We ran tests with networking and bayes disabled and the improvement
> was over 2x.
>
> Chris
>
Than
The biggest performance benefit you'll see is if you use spamd. The
pre-forking of children makes an incredible amount of difference.
We ran tests with networking and bayes disabled and the improvement
was over 2x.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: scohen [mailto:[EMAI
On Tuesday 14 September 2004 06:36, scohen wrote:
> I've read through the benefits to SA 3.0 but I don't see any mention of
> performance. I was wondering:
>
> A) Does SA 3.0 use less memory/CPU then SA 2.64?
cant say for others but in my case and from what I have read from the list.
cpu is about
