I'm assuming you run a tad more messages than I, but on a quad with a failover I have never seen the failover kick in 4 years. This is not disputing your observations, just noting mine.
I claim absolutely no knowledge about the core processing/stacking though I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the parsing would be part of the software (MTA). I freely admit I only picked up what seems the tail end of this thread but having used SA for so many years I think I have at least a handle on how it plays (hence the failover). My failover SA is in place to handle slow queries from the primary SA. Assuming (again) that mail size has been factored and any AV is running remotely? Just a few thoughts based on a very cursory read of a few posts, sadly - or happily, work make my contributions here limited. I'd be interested in the results of this though. Kind regards Nigel PS - apologies if I'm repeating prior observations. On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:41:47 -0700 (PDT), poifgh <abhinav.pat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >Henrik K wrote: >> >> Yeah, given that my 4x3Ghz box masscheck peaks at 22 msgs/sec, without >> Net/AWL/Bayes. But that's the 3.3 SVN ruleset.. wonder what version was >> used >> and any nondefault rules/settings? Certainly sounds strange that 1 core >> could top out the same. Anyone else have figures? Maybe I've borked >> something myself.. >> > >The problem is not with 22 being a low number, but when we have other free >cores to run different SA parallely why doesnt the throughput scale linearly >.. I expect for 8 cores with 8 SA running simultaneously the number to be >150+ msgs/sec but it is 1/3rd at 50 msgs/sec
