From: "Nigel Frankcom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 00:52:58 -0700, "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:46:05 -0700
"jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hey all!
>
> Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
> have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs ok....will upgrading to 3.1.4 plus
> the SARE rules tank it? Or am I safe? Thanks all!
Perhaps.
Do not run anything else with a significant memory footprint on the
system at the same time. Do not use X, of course. Minimize the number
of children spawned to one.
{^_^} Joanne
Thank you Joanne :)
(I used to run SA on a 256 meg 66 MHz Pentium that was also the firewall.
It was erm ahm slow, VERY slow. But it ran. This was in the 2.6.3 days
give or take some.)
{^_-}
The largest factor to take into consideration is how much mail SA will
be dealing with. Running a single child will be limiting, if you are
getting anything more than a few hundred mails per day that hardware
will be insufficient. You will either hit long delays or mail will be
passed through without being scanned.
<<jdow's plugged nickel's worth>>Based on the bad case I ran his
machine should do on the order of 10 to 30 seconds per email depending
on the speed of his processor. At 30 seconds per that gives him the
capacity, with delays to be sure, for 3000 emails per day. When they
come in batched there will be several minutes of delay. But for most
people's needs for a single user 3000 emails is somewhat more than is
to be expected.
{^_-} Joanne, who has a bad habit if running numbers. And I note he
might be able to run two instances to get SOME benefit from
paralleling the DNS lookups.
