OK - I can see what metrics you are trying to ascertain - I think. I'm not sure that your test and real life are 'right'. For obvious reasons I don't want to carry this one on via list - I would suggest you ask Justin and I will be happy to give info on my local setup (this assumes Justin can grab time away from toxic nappies/daipers)
There is a lot you can do to ameliorate load. On bad days my quad does 50 a second so it's doable. I will freely admit I have no clue quite how this came to be, but it is (a case of having colleagues knowing more than I do - for which I am eternally grateful; the usual culprits know who they are) Kind regards Nigel On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:41:14 -0700 (PDT), poifgh <abhinav.pat...@gmail.com> wrote: > >In my tests - there was not MTA. The mails/spam were collected from some >server in mbox format and fed to SA using --mbox switch. The size of msgs >was not altered in any fashion - just the usual size of incoming spam/mails > >There are no AV [you mean Anti Virus right?] running on the machine > >Would be back with results > >-- > > > > >Nigel Frankcom-2 wrote: >> >> 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 >> >>
