[linux-elitists] AOL says goodbye to AT&T/Comcast and residential mail spools

Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com
Sun Apr 13 21:39:19 PDT 2003

on Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 09:23:00PM -0400, Andrew (akohlsmith-le@benshaw.com) wrote:
> > I suppose we could change to a different system which would also
> > sequester mail blocked by source address.  (Last time I checked,
> > SpamAssassin was too resource-intensive to be used.)
> Out of curiosity, what kind of mail volume do you have?  I've been running 
> SpamAssassin (with pgsql-backend for user prefs) for a ~15k-user ISP.  With 
> RAV in there as well, the Duron 950 is sitting at an average 15-minute load 
> of 2.3-2.7.  This is on plain-jane ATA disks if that matters much.
> Just looking at the spamd log, there were 50331 spam scans performed in the 
> last 17.5 hours, so what's that, almost 2900 emails an hour?  I'm sure that 
> on a recent processor our load'd be under 1.0.

I'm not so sure of that.

First, remember that load average *isn't* a measure of CPU demand.  It's
a measure of how many jobs are in the current run queue.  Which includes
jobs that are blocked for IO.

If you're running extensive tests on Spamassassin, including DNS
lookups, your SA child processes may block for IO.  Increasing CPU won't
help you here.  Distributing the load across a number of systems
probably will both ruduce load on each given system, and (likley)
improve your total throughput.  The SA daemon isn't particularly
scalable, though this has been improving.  It should be good for most
mid-sized domains (I was running it with ~15k addresses last year).


Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   Kudos to Gateway's Digital Music Campaing & stand against the RIAA.

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list