Hey, I've got two cents that you're welcome to... Both Pete and Matt mentioned that Keith's experience was outside the bounds of the normal experience.
Keith, you could make sure that your setup is valid by setting up Message Sniffer on your own workstation with srvany, and then manually running some messages from your held spam folder there. Because you would test the files manually, you wouldn't need to bother with installing a whole mail server infrastructure. If you want to go the extra mile and test what happens when many instances are called, write a batch file that uses the "start" command to launch independent copies of your sniffer executable. The persistent sniffer may well scan messages so fast that it keeps up with the parent script, so you'd have to experiment with how many sniffer instances you'd want to invoke. As for my own experience, my server was on the edge and had significant disk and cpu pressure. I found that the persistent-mode sniffer created a noticeable decline in how busy my disk system was. In fact, I used to have a lot of log corruption in Declude, and this also noticeably declined. I also had a bad first experience with the persistent sniffer, and switch to FireDaemon from SrvAny, and set the start priority for sniffer to "Above Normal"; I can't prove it, but I'm convinced that without that setting, Declude starves out other processes such as the persistent sniffer, and then the other sniffer clients get impatient and process the files themselves, causing more cpu pressure. Andrew 8) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete McNeil Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 3:03 PM To: Keith Johnson Subject: Re[6]: [sniffer] Persistent Sniffer On Friday, April 1, 2005, 3:37:33 PM, Keith wrote: <snip/> KJ> pegged the CPU as you stated. We have batted around running BIND KJ> for NT/2000 on the local machine, but my fear was overhead of KJ> another major process running. I don't have any good stats on how KJ> much CPU/Memory BIND on an Imail Server requires, thus, we have a KJ> SUN/BIND box local to the switch. Are you aware of any stats on KJ> this? No hard data on hand, however a back of the envelope calculation suggests that you probably have a good chunk of ram left - and that this will probably expand if you can retire messages more quickly -- that has a tendency to speed up everything since everything has more room etc. I've never heard a bad experience with this approach, and I have proven it several times on otherwise overwhelmed machines. Paradoxically, for example, my woefully underpowered P2/450 will choke if I don't run bind locally - even if the DNS server it points at is on the a hot, dedicated box on the same switch. The minute I put bind on the same box as the server it recovers nicely. KJ> We don't run the AVAFTERJM switch. This is done in part due KJ> to so many of our customers still look at their spam email from time KJ> to time. We heavily use the ROUTETO and MAILBOX command, thus, if I KJ> let a virus go through to their to mailbox, they could potentially KJ> open a virus spam email and hurt themselves. Understood. What about prescan? KJ> We defrag each partition every night using Diskeeper and it KJ> works great. I regularly look at the Sniffer directory to ensure no KJ> left over .fin files and others that could cause server load. Sounds good - I like Diskeeper too - won't run a Winx box without it. KJ> I will KJ> retry it again tonight and see what type of results I get and post KJ> them here. It could be as you say, I am on the far side :) Thanks & Good Luck, _M This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
