On any system with a lot of rule sets SA represents about 90% of the total message prosessing time. C vs perl makes a difference on that part.
Trust me - I used a lot of time checks to make sure it was worth it. spamd made a big difference over embedded perl, not to mention the differeence in ram used. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David F. Skoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] MIMEDefang + spamd > > On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, John Scully wrote: > > > 1) The compiled C spamd processes messages faster then the perl module. > > I can't believe that. The message processing is still done in Perl, > after all. > > > 2) We run DCC via dccifd before SA and don't bother running SA if DCC has > > the message listed. > > That probably is what helps. > > > 3) We check account status, quota, blacklists etc before running SA > > And that. > > > These last two items mean that SA is run on only about 1 out of 4 messages - > > epecially when we are under some sort of dictionary spam attack. We have 60 > > MD slaves runing, but only 15 SA threads (and it never ties up all 15). > > Since we run a LOT of custom rule sets each SA thread is about 50M, so if I > > had SA embedded in each MD slave SA would be consuming 3G of memory instead > > of 750M. > > If you use the embedded Perl interpreter, almost all of that memory > should be shared by all the slaves. > > Regards, > > David. > _______________________________________________ > Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca > MIMEDefang mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang > > _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca MIMEDefang mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
