We are aware of the overhead imposed by viruscan, and we tested both with and without it. Even without McAfee, the numbers are still bad, and the exceptions are still there. The data we have seems to show that Windows SMTP doesn't suffer from the presence of virusscan because it leaves plenty of CPU time available, while James doesn't. If James managed to bring down its CPU usage, I expect it would be able to coexist with viruscan as well (or as badly) as the Windows SMTP server.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 12:57 AM > To: James Users List > Subject: RE: James load test causes several exceptions > > > Do also disable McAfee online access scan, as it may add a > big overload and *it is not* the right way to use virusscan, > because it may be scanning every file going in and out from > the spool directories. McAfee virusscan may have special code > to deal with MS SMTP in the correct way, and has no special > code for James. > > Vincenzo > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: giovedì 4 dicembre 2003 19.40 > > To: James Users List > > Subject: RE: James load test causes several exceptions > > > > > > > We ran the same test, using the 2.2.0a15 build. It didn't make any > > difference. > > > > > We'll run another test assigning more memory to the VM; I > guess that if > > that > > > doesn't make any real difference, and nobody has any > other suggestion > > > > Don't forget to also switch the spool to dbfile, and streamline the > > pipeline. > > > > --- Noel > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
