http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3077
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-03-08 08:32 ------- Subject: RE: spamassassin -d is too damn slow > > Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-03-07 15:49 > > I'd be interested to see how it does right now. :) It looks good. Here's the scoop. Running as 'root' to avoid potential NFS mounts of home dir., specifying -p /dev/null to avoid issues relating to user prefs.: # time spamassassin -d --mbox -p /dev/null < spam-1000-msgs.mbox > spam-1000-clean.mbox Created user preferences file: /dev/null 6.490u 0.420s 0:08.25 83.7% 0+0k 0+0io 593pf+0w That's 102 messages per. sec. on a 2.4G P4 Xeon running RH 9. Compare this to the results in this note: http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=1795&action=view which yielded the following performance given the same dataset, under similar circumstances: # time formail -s spamassassin -L -d -C ./empty -p ./prefs < spam-1000-msgs.mbox > spam-1000-clean-2.mbox 422.000u 37.420s 7:40.09 99.8% 0+0k 0+0io 574120pf+0w which limped along at 2.1 msgs/sec. Thus the new --mbox method is 47 times faster than the old one-at-a-time method, and 2x as fast as the formail/procmail/sed method (which doesn't do everything that SA -d does.) I'd say that's a noticeable improvement. Nice work Theo, et al. - Gary ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
