From: "David Brodbeck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:43:16 -0700 (PDT), email builder wrote
> > Thanks.  We were thinking about a NFS server, but SA concerns seemed
> > more important.  If both can coexist peacefully, this may be the
> > exact same solution that we use.
>
> It seems like it'd be a good match.  NFS is highly I/O intensive, but
doesn't
> use the CPU much.  SA is highly CPU intensive, but does relatively little
I/O.
>  Just make sure you have enough memory; you don't want SA's hunger for RAM
to
> starve the machine for disk cache space, and you sure as heck don't want
any
> swapping.

Out of addled curiosity (not pointing specifically at you David) why has
nobody mentioned the traditional "SpamAssassin is slow" mantra, "Try
more memory?" I normally run SpamAssassin (2.63) on a slow machine, a
166MHz Pentium with only 256k of ram. I also have a test install, pending
retiring the old machine, that is a 2GHz Athlon with 1 gig of ram. The
newer machine appears to run much faster than the ratio of the CPU clock
speeds would allow. Usually I get much less than a 1:1 speed improvement
when upgrading the CPU, based on past observations. (Kernel compiles are
not NEARLY 13 times as fast on the newer machine, for example.) I
attribute much of the difference to having a massive overload of memory
on the newer machine.

Now, it is a problem if a spamd balloons to 100megs or more and stays
there. It is not particularly a problem if 3.0.1 uses twice or three
times the memory of 2.63. Throw more memory at it. Memory is cheaper
than your time spent trying to work around large Bayes files and large
rule sets.

{^_-}   Joanne, being controversial again. (And those going to
        ApacheCon PLEASE buttonhole the geek who has this list
        going through a spam filter. I've had dozens of novel
        attacks come through recently. And I can't post them to
        the list for the SARE people. For example a modification
        of the drug rules is now needed for "m or tga ge" and
        "a pp lica ti o n". Spam is food for this list, at least
        as attachments.)


Reply via email to