On 22/06/2010 10:52 AM, Henrique Fernandes wrote:
It is safe to use spamassassin tmpdir on a tmpfs mounted system ?
Yes it's safe.
And if its safe it would have a better performance ?
Potentially. If you've got memory free for it, it certainly shouldn't
perform worse.
Daryl
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca
Sent: Saturday, 2010/June/26 15:23
On 22/06/2010 10:52 AM, Henrique Fernandes wrote:
It is safe to use spamassassin tmpdir on a tmpfs mounted system ?
Yes it's safe.
And if its safe it would have a better performance ?
Potentially
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:33:32 -0700
jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote:
Potentially. If you've got memory free for it, it certainly
shouldn't perform worse.
That might be a big if with a huge downside, Daryl.
If the memory used by tmpfs forces SpamAssassin into memory swapping
any speed
On 22.06.10 12:40, Henrique Fernandes wrote:
My ram dos not get full, i do not have so many process, i limit it in
postfix.
It reduces the chances of losing emails if i do not have many process of
spamassassin runing.
So is safe or not to use tmpfs for tempdir in spamassassin. ?
I use
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:47:00 -0700
Gary Smith gary.sm...@holdstead.com wrote:
I had a very dramatic performance improvement by switching bayes and
awl
databases to MySQL instead of the default BerkeleyDB. It costs more
RAM, CPU, and disk space, but scan times reduced dramatically. I'm
It is safe to use spamassassin tmpdir on a tmpfs mounted system ?
And if its safe it would have a better performance ?
Here where i work we have big problems with the hard drives, because we
basically are sharing virtual machines disk over nfs. and spamassasin is a
virtual machine.
Any other
2010/6/22 Henrique Fernandes sf.ri...@gmail.com
It is safe to use spamassassin tmpdir on a tmpfs mounted system ?
And if its safe it would have a better performance ?
Here where i work we have big problems with the hard drives, because we
basically are sharing virtual machines disk over nfs
It is safe to use spamassassin tmpdir on a tmpfs mounted system ?
And if its safe it would have a better performance ?
Here where i work we have big problems with the hard drives, because we
basically are sharing virtual machines disk over nfs. and spamassasin is a
virtual machine.
Any
with the message it does
on tmpfs.
[]'sf.rique
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Gary Smith gary.sm...@holdstead.comwrote:
It is safe to use spamassassin tmpdir on a tmpfs mounted system ?
And if its safe it would have a better performance ?
Here where i work we have big problems with the hard
My ram dos not get full, i do not have so many process, i limit it in postfix.
It reduces the chances of losing emails if i do not have many process of
spamassassin runing.
So is safe or not to use tmpfs for tempdir in spamassassin. ?
This way, everything that spamassassin have to do with
pyzor and dcc
Só it might be it ?
If i am not using wont get in tmp ?
Right now i have 2 server with spamassassin, one i just put everything in
spamassassin in tmpfs and the other one i did not change anything
[]'sf.rique
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Gary Smith
, CPU, and disk space, but scan times reduced dramatically. I'm
certain we were I/O bound before this change because we had plenty of
RAM and CPU available.
It is safe to use spamassassin tmpdir on a tmpfs mounted system ?
And if its safe it would have a better performance ?
Here where i
I don't know if it is safe. I suspect it will function normally, but I
think you'd be in danger of losing a few messages on an unexpected
reboot.
I had a very dramatic performance improvement by switching bayes and
awl
databases to MySQL instead of the default BerkeleyDB. It costs more
it is taking about 3 seconds each email, i have pyzor and dcc, i am already
runing with mysql db.
After i get the statistis i will post here if tmpfs is faster or not! I made
some script that can't see anyway for losing email!
Thanks for all advise!
And sorry about my english
[]'sf.rique
On
14 matches
Mail list logo
