I had these issues before with 3 similar servers in an ISP setup where I had to continually 'baby-sit' spamd (maybe was a bad setup, didnt do it myself.) I changed everything to use exim+amavisd setup where I accept mail first before scanning (exceptions to rbl-listed IPs) and the servers now barely use more than 10% CPU and always less than 5% I/O wait. >From my experience, scanning at SMTP-time thus has a load on CPU, other people may differ on the same.
rgds, Joseph On Tuesday 19 September 2006 15:56, Graeme Fowler wrote: > On 19/09/2006 13:44, Mark Adams wrote: > > I'm talking about the wait time on the disks (iowait) which as defined > > by iostat manpage > > > > %iowait > > "Show the percentage of time that the CPU or CPUs were idle during which > > the system had an outstanding disk I/O request." > > > > it seems the disks cannot keep up with spamassassin? > > > > It is definatly something that I am worrying about as it is causing lag > > to the SMB service on the same server. > > Ah. > > In that case, if you've got enough (your definition, not mine!) RAM then > you could put the SpamAssassin working/Bayes directories onto a RAM > disk. In fact, while you're at it, put your Exim spool databases onto a > RAM disk too. You'll marvel (hopefully) at the boost you get in > performance. > > Implementation is left as an exercise for the reader, particularly with > respects volatility of data and (where necessary) keeping hold of it > across service restarts and/or system reboots. > > Graeme -- I blog at http://okechukwu.blogspot.com Give a man a computer program and you give him a headache, but teach him to program computers and you give him the power to create headaches for others for the rest of his life... -- R. B. Forest -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
