On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This lends itself to my "using spamc/spamd from MIMEDefang" > question. Adding MySQL support or PostgreSQL support further inflates > an already large Mail::SpamAssassin object.
Not by that much. The client library code (pgsql.so in the case of PostgreSQL) is shared, and compared to the rest of SpamAssassin, it's tiny. > When the largest thing in a MIMEDefang slave is the SpamAssassin > object, the idea of factoring it out comes to my mind. Instead of ten > active MIMEDefang slaves, each hoarding their own private SpamAssassin > object, consider twenty active MIMEDefang slaves - each calling spamc > to connect to a pool of five running spamd daemons. This might be a good idea. I wouldn't fork/exec spamc, but rather implement the SA client-server protocol directly in Perl (I don't think it's all that complex.) Now that spamd has a preforked model, it might work quite well. > It would interest me to see some real-world statistics on what > percentage of the time a given MIMEDefang slave spends in: I have statistics for CanIt, and I can tell you that over 90% of the average slave's busy time is spent inside SpamAssassin (or in our case, doing DB queries.) This is pretty consistent over hundreds of customers. Regards, David. _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca MIMEDefang mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
