[sniffer] Re: Ideal config for scaleable solution?

2008-02-22 Thread Colbeck, Andrew
Paul, since you're working in a Windows world, check out Alligate from
alligate.com as a Windows platform based email gateway.

I've put Alligate in front of my Declude setup and it drastically
reduced the number of emails I had scan for content and sender in
Declude, and gained back a lot of disk time and cpu time. The product
can share your existing server, but is recommended for a dedicated
gateway. It can scale to many gateways while sharing a central database.
It'll do everything you want, actually.

That's as much as I'm going to say here, because this list is all about
Message Sniffer.

If you were a *nix shop, you would still lean towards having a dedicated
gateway server (or many) and your CPU hog would be spamassassin, which
you would run in a client/server model to shift the CPU usage to other
boxes.

Meanwhile, you might check the Declude support list for scalability tips
with your existing setup.


Andrew.



 -Original Message-
 From: Message Sniffer Community 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Rogers
 Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:53 PM
 To: Message Sniffer Community
 Subject: [sniffer] Ideal config for scaleable solution?
 
 
 Ie, ideal for processing/serving 10+ million emails per day in an
 imail/declude/snf configuration.  SNF seems to generally be the big
 processor hog (though the new beta has definitely made huge 
 performance
 improvements over the prior version).
 
 OK...this is a bit off-topic, but I'm looking for some 
 feedback in how to
 plan for handling this type of load (current load is between 1.3m and
 1.8m/day).
 
 Should I just throw more high performance hardware at it?
 
 Scale out perhaps by dedicating a server to just the junk 
 mail scanning.
 Then have a relatively wimpy server taking care of normal Imail stuff
 (recipient of the declude/snf clean and/or tagged emails).  
 
 Along that line of thought, can SNF be configured to work 
 directly with the
 MS/IIS SMTP server?  This combo could work great as a 
 spam-killing gateway.
 
 Has anyone assembled this sort of configuration in a load 
 balanced/redundant
 environment?
 
 Paul ---
 
 
 
 
 
 #
 This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
   the mailing list sniffer@sortmonster.com.
 To unsubscribe, E-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Send administrative queries to  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 


#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list sniffer@sortmonster.com.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send administrative queries to  [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[sniffer] Re: Ideal config for scaleable solution?

2008-02-22 Thread Pete McNeil
Hello Paul,

Thursday, February 21, 2008, 7:52:55 PM, you wrote:

 Ie, ideal for processing/serving 10+ million emails per day in an
 imail/declude/snf configuration.  SNF seems to generally be the big
 processor hog (though the new beta has definitely made huge performance
 improvements over the prior version).

One of our test platforms uses a single 2.6G processor, IMail, and SNF
and consistently handles  4.6 million messages per day. (Typ 2800 -
4500 msg/minute) Of course, that's a special appliation (pre-screening
inbound traps) but it does give a rough idea what is possible in your
chosen environment.

 OK...this is a bit off-topic, but I'm looking for some feedback in how to
 plan for handling this type of load (current load is between 1.3m and
 1.8m/day).

 Should I just throw more high performance hardware at it?

Probably not.

 Scale out perhaps by dedicating a server to just the junk mail scanning.
 Then have a relatively wimpy server taking care of normal Imail stuff
 (recipient of the declude/snf clean and/or tagged emails).

Two key problems with the IMail platform is that it never stops taking
messages and it doesn't support any kind of dynamic connection
blocking. Fixing these problems allows IMail to scale to numbers like
that.

One way to go there would be to set up proxy gateways using eWall in
front of your IMail servers. Put SNF on eWall and use it to reject
dictionary harvest attacks and possibly even some traffic based on
SNF. Definitely use SNF truncate events to add sources to the eWall
blacklist. Generally this approach alone will kill off a LOT of
traffic that would otherwise bog down IMail/Declude without
introducing false positives. You would have many additional options
with eWall in this configuration - but you wouldn't need them
necessarily and since eWall is amazingly inexpensive you would be
getting a big bang for your buck.

Your IMail servers w/ Declude could sit behind a pair of eWall
gateways (for redundancy) and provide all of the flexibility and
additional testing you're used to -- so you wouldn't need to re-tool
your infrastructure very much.

You probably don't want to scale up using heavy hardware. Instead, use
cheaper - more generic hardware and increase your redundancy. One good
reason for this philosophy is that if you have a pair of very high -
end boxes handling *anything* and one of them dies then it is unlikely
the remaining box will be able to absorb twice as much *anything* as
it normally handles. In contrast, when one of three moderate boxes
handling *anything* the remaining two boxes are very likely to be able
to absorb 50% more traffic each.

 Along that line of thought, can SNF be configured to work directly with the
 MS/IIS SMTP server?  This combo could work great as a spam-killing gateway.

Yes and no. IIRC, ORF uses IIS SMTP and will tie in SNF nicely.

Also - if you have some skills you could tie SNF into IIS SMTP using
our DLL (not published yet, but available and in use on a number of
proprietary systems).

Out of the box we don't have an SNF + IIS SMTP solution (yet).

 Has anyone assembled this sort of configuration in a load balanced/redundant
 environment?

It has been done. Most that I know of who have done this eventually
moved away from IMail/Declude as they grew beyond the numbers you're
talking about and developed their own proprietary filtering platform
(using SNF as it's core) on top of a more robust EMail platform
(Communigate for example).

Others who are comfortable with mixed environments have deployed SNF
in their gateways.

The general model for scalability is to isolate inbound gateways,
user-centered email servers (pop, imap) and outbound gateways into
separate layers with their own redundancies. It is also common for
each layer to use it's own hardware and software platforms - each best
suited to the specific task.

Hope this helps,

_M

-- 
Pete McNeil
Chief Scientist,
Arm Research Labs, LLC.


#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list sniffer@sortmonster.com.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send administrative queries to  [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[sniffer] Re: Ideal config for scaleable solution?

2008-02-22 Thread Pete McNeil
Hello Andrew,

Friday, February 22, 2008, 4:37:18 AM, you wrote:

snip/

 If you were a *nix shop, you would still lean towards having a dedicated
 gateway server (or many) and your CPU hog would be spamassassin, which
 you would run in a client/server model to shift the CPU usage to other
 boxes.

Of course, SNF also can plug into SA. However SNF tends to be much
leaner than SA with comparable (or even slightly better) capture
rates. You may want to run SNF in front of SA to get rid of most of
the junk and rapidly inform local blocking lists and gray-listing
mechanisms. The combination of SA  SNF is superior to either on it's
own if you have the technical resources.

_M

-- 
Pete McNeil
Chief Scientist,
Arm Research Labs, LLC.


#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list sniffer@sortmonster.com.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send administrative queries to  [EMAIL PROTECTED]