On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 23:35, Karsten Bräckelmann
<guent...@rudersport.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 15:06 +0000, Justin Mason wrote:
>
>> actually, Bayes would be a good one to drop. If you also remove AWL,
>> and comment out both "loadplugin" lines, you will remove the need to
>> load the DB_File database module too.
>>
>> commenting plugins and removing rulesets is definitely the way to go.
>> you may be able to keep some net rules active -- trading long scan
>> times and latency for low memory.
>
> Why is that? Given the, uhm, quite low specs of that box, scanning a
> message will consume a few seconds CPU cycles anyway. Adding net tests,
> which don't require CPU but just "add" latency (well, background tasks),
> should be less of an issue the longer SA needs anyway.
I think we're agreeing. ;) Removing plugins means lowering the per-process
memory footprint. I presume there's a very low messages/minute throughput
rate -- ie. it's a 1-person scanning server, or similar. In that situation, you
can set the number of spamd children to a low value and limit concurrency.
BTW you definitely want to use spamd, rather than the "spamassassin" script.
It's good at sharing memory.
Obviously I wouldn't use this as a scanning server for an office full of people,
but for a 1-man home network I can't see why not... it'd certainly be a nice
reduction in power consumption. ;)
--j.
> Luis, out of curiosity -- why do you want to run SA on that box anyway?
> Atom powered boxes with plenty of RAM are available for 200 bucks. That
> box essentially would be bored and running idle, while still having the
> resources to add almost whatever you feel like.
>
> guenther
>
>
> --
> char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
> main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
> (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
>
>
