On Friday, April 1, 2005, 3:37:33 PM, Keith wrote: <snip/>
KJ> pegged the CPU as you stated. We have batted around running BIND KJ> for NT/2000 on the local machine, but my fear was overhead of KJ> another major process running. I don't have any good stats on how KJ> much CPU/Memory BIND on an Imail Server requires, thus, we have a KJ> SUN/BIND box local to the switch. Are you aware of any stats on KJ> this? No hard data on hand, however a back of the envelope calculation suggests that you probably have a good chunk of ram left - and that this will probably expand if you can retire messages more quickly -- that has a tendency to speed up everything since everything has more room etc. I've never heard a bad experience with this approach, and I have proven it several times on otherwise overwhelmed machines. Paradoxically, for example, my woefully underpowered P2/450 will choke if I don't run bind locally - even if the DNS server it points at is on the a hot, dedicated box on the same switch. The minute I put bind on the same box as the server it recovers nicely. KJ> We don't run the AVAFTERJM switch. This is done in part due to KJ> so many of our customers still look at their spam email from time to KJ> time. We heavily use the ROUTETO and MAILBOX command, thus, if I let a KJ> virus go through to their to mailbox, they could potentially open a KJ> virus spam email and hurt themselves. Understood. What about prescan? KJ> We defrag each partition every night using Diskeeper and it KJ> works great. I regularly look at the Sniffer directory to ensure no KJ> left over .fin files and others that could cause server load. Sounds good - I like Diskeeper too - won't run a Winx box without it. KJ> I will KJ> retry it again tonight and see what type of results I get and post them KJ> here. It could be as you say, I am on the far side :) Thanks & Good Luck, _M This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
