RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude using 50% cpu

[Tom Baker | Netsmith Inc]

Title: Message

On the subject of disk systems and performance, I'de like to offer our experience to the original poster. Our IMAIL server is Dual P3 1.13GHz w/ 1GB RAM. We used to run SCSI raid5, but for some reason it was changed to RAID1 ATA100 drives (partitiond, but a single pair for everything).   We run somewhere around 120k messages per day, and for the last several months cpu utilization would never drop below 40%, usually hovering around 60%-80%. If we wouldnt reboot/cycle all imail services every 4-6 days cpu utilization would peg at 100% and the overflow folder will fill to several thousand messages.   about 3 weeks ago when we needed to use IMail administrator we removed the well documented hotfix that causes problems with Imail 6.05, during this remove our OS got corrupted somehow....giving me the chance to add another pair of hard drives and clean install everything.   Now Our server has a RAID1 mirror for the OS/Pagefile/Spool & a RAID1 mirror for mailbox's. Still not optimum, but just by moving the OS/pagefile/spool to a dedicated volume our CPU utilization now sits at 2% and peaks at 12% and has been stable since.   The underlying disk system is VERY IMPORANT, espcially making sure the spool and mailbox's are on seperate physical volumes.   (*note: prior to solving our disk problem disabling declude would make a difference in CPU utilization yes, but we knew the problem was an IO bottleneck and were planning on adding disks anyway. A disk IO bottleneck often appears to be a different problem... ) -----Original Message----- From: Kami Razvan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 11:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude using 50% cpu Hi John:   I totally agree with you... RAID 5 is best suited for that purpose.   The only reason we have it as such is simply because of redundancy.  The best for mailboxes is RAID 0+1.  RAID 5 gives us the ease of adding more storage and more redundancy.   But You are right..   Regards, Kami