Lindsay Haisley wrote:
I think you misunderstand me. If spamc on machine A is invoked with -d
<IP address of machine B> then spamc will use whatever databases and
configurations are in effect for spamd on machine B. This is what the
-d option is for. The "actual processing" is done by spamd, whichever
instance (machine A or B) is addressed by the spamc client, so I do have
a choice here, and that's what I want to decide on. spamc is basically
just a passive client which reads and writes emails and passes off the
job of spam processing to spamd, wherever it may be.
If spamc on machine B uses it's local spamd instance (the same one
machine A is using) as a server, then the task I'm trying to do is
accomplished since both machines are ultimately using the same database.
<read> <reread> Ah, I think I see what you're asking.
I read that you were asking about whether/how to consolidate two
separate MySQL instances each serving a local spamd on the same machine,
to a single MySQL instance serving both machines' spamd.
The current load on what I've defined above as "machine B" and is quite
manageable, and this is the box that's now handling over 90% of traffic
to probably a couple of hundred mailboxes on the system. The MySQL
tables used by SA are at well less than a gig on a box that has close to
half a TB of drive space on it, and SA has been running there for over a
year. The system load avg runs consistently under 1 except when
cron-initiated maintenance happens.
Ah. "hardware status == overkill" <g>
Although I appreciate your advice, my question here is not _whether_ I
should do the integration, but which of the two methods of integrating
the databases will be most efficient of bandwidth and other resources.
<read> <reread again> I'm getting confused again. What components do
you have running on which systems, and what are you trying to consolidate?
-kgd
