This whole time I thought the subject line was Paralyzing Spam
Assassin and the original poster was having trouble with SA locking up.
Oops. ;-)
--
Dan Schaefer
Web Developer/Systems Analyst
Performance Administration Corp.
I would run a tcpdump on the ethernet interface while doing this, just
in case there are network tests happening that you are not aware of.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:55:21PM -0700, poifgh wrote:
Hi
I was measuring how quickly could SA [spam assassin] process spams when
several SA
I did that - with DNSBL off there are no port 53 communications from SA
--
Jason Philbrook wrote:
I would run a tcpdump on the ethernet interface while doing this, just
in case there are network tests happening that you are not aware of.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:55:21PM -0700, poifgh
It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get
Americans all disturbed.
Funny, used to be the other way around...but well...times change.
Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
rich...@buzzhost.co.ukrich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Imagine what Barracuda
* Linda Walsh sa-u...@tlinx.org:
It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get
Americans all disturbed.
Sloppy language is sloppy language everywhere! I took offense in the message,
too and I am neither American nor am I from the UK.
But what annoys me the most is
May I point out, that while you may find the language crude -- it isn't
language that would violate FTC standards in that in used any of the
7 or so 'unmentionable words'...
People -- these standards of 'crude language' really need to be strongly
held 'in check' -- the US is 'supposed' to be
Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores that
were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores, or
HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 archs, HT's actually slowed down a good
many workloads unless they were tightly constructed to work on the same
data in
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 23:40 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get
Americans all disturbed.
I'm sure that is mostly it, Linda. They don't seem to 'get' it.
Two things I observe in this whole 'barracuda-gate' posting;
1. Being
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores that
were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores, or
HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 archs, HT's actually slowed down a good
many workloads
Henrik K wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores
that
were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores,
or
HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 archs, HT's actually slowed down a
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:04, Henrik Kh...@hege.li wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores that
were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores, or
HT cores? In the Core2 and
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 11:46:57AM +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Henrik K wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores
that
were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores,
or
Henrik K wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 11:46:57AM +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Henrik K wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores
that
were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 23:56 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
May I point out, that while you may find the language crude -- it isn't
language that would violate FTC standards in that in used any of the
7 or so 'unmentionable words'...
It's not about words on their own -- it's about how they are
Um, Linda.. I'm pretty positive Justin is Irish, not American.
Linda Walsh wrote:
It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get
Americans all disturbed.
Funny, used to be the other way around...but well...times change.
Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 01:34:34PM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
That reminds me, gotta test how SA runs on a Sun T5240 with 16 core 128
cores..
Well not that impressive for SA, price/speed wise..
T2+ 2x8x1.4Ghz, 144 msgs/sec @ 128 processes
AMD X4 4x3Ghz, 43 msgs/sec @ 4 processes
Note that this
hi -- turn off Bayes and AWL.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 07:55, poifghabhinav.pat...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I was measuring how quickly could SA [spam assassin] process spams when
several SA processes are run in parallel over separate mbox files. I used a
8 core machine. Below are the numbers
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:55:21PM -0700, poifgh wrote:
Why am I not seeing a linear increase in the throughput?
Is a file locking creating the bottleneck?
Maybe the auto white list.
--
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0700, poifgh wrote:
Hi
I was measuring how quickly could SA [spam assassin] process spams when
several SA processes are run in parallel over separate mbox files. I used a
8 core machine. Below are the numbers when I forked different number of
processes.
Fork
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
rich...@buzzhost.co.ukrich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with that if they did not fill
their gay little boxes with hardware rubbish from the floors of MSI and
supermicro. Jesus, try and process that many messages with a $30,000
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32:42AM +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0700, poifgh wrote:
Hi
I was measuring how quickly could SA [spam assassin] process spams when
several SA processes are run in parallel over separate mbox files. I used a
8 core
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:53 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
rich...@buzzhost.co.ukrich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with that if they did not fill
their gay little boxes with hardware rubbish from the floors of MSI and
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0700, poifgh wrote:
[...]
I was measuring how quickly could SA [spam assassin] process spams when
several SA processes are run in parallel over separate mbox files. I used a
8 core machine. Below are the numbers when I forked different number of
processes.
Fork
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:53 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
rich...@buzzhost.co.ukrich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with that if they did not fill
their gay little boxes with hardware
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 07:26 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:53 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
rich...@buzzhost.co.ukrich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with that if
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
... dropping in here and making jokes at such low hanging fruit.
Make all the jokes at Barracuda's expense that you like, complain about
them all you like, just avoid offensive language. Vitriol is more
impressive if you are creative enough
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 08:25 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
... dropping in here and making jokes at such low hanging fruit.
Make all the jokes at Barracuda's expense that you like, complain about
them all you like, just avoid offensive
Henrik K wrote:
Yeah, given that my 4x3Ghz box masscheck peaks at 22 msgs/sec, without
Net/AWL/Bayes. But that's the 3.3 SVN ruleset.. wonder what version was
used
and any nondefault rules/settings? Certainly sounds strange that 1 core
could top out the same. Anyone else have figures?
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0700, poifgh wrote:
[...]
I ran freshly build SA with Bayes and DNSBL turned off. Why am I not
seeing
a linear increase in the throughput? Is a file locking creating the
Because the bottleneck is not (only) the CPUs?
Run `vmstat 1`
c. r. wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:55:21PM -0700, poifgh wrote:
Why am I not seeing a linear increase in the throughput?
Is a file locking creating the bottleneck?
Maybe the auto white list.
--
I can try turning off AWL and get back here..
Thnx
--
View this message in
Henrik K wrote:
Yeah, given that my 4x3Ghz box masscheck peaks at 22 msgs/sec, without
Net/AWL/Bayes. But that's the 3.3 SVN ruleset.. wonder what version was
used
and any nondefault rules/settings? Certainly sounds strange that 1 core
could top out the same. Anyone else have figures?
I'm assuming you run a tad more messages than I, but on a quad with a
failover I have never seen the failover kick in 4 years. This is not
disputing your observations, just noting mine.
I claim absolutely no knowledge about the core processing/stacking
though I would assume (perhaps incorrectly)
In my tests - there was not MTA. The mails/spam were collected from some
server in mbox format and fed to SA using --mbox switch. The size of msgs
was not altered in any fashion - just the usual size of incoming spam/mails
There are no AV [you mean Anti Virus right?] running on the machine
OK - I can see what metrics you are trying to ascertain - I think. I'm
not sure that your test and real life are 'right'. For obvious reasons
I don't want to carry this one on via list - I would suggest you ask
Justin and I will be happy to give info on my local setup (this
assumes Justin can grab
In my tests - there was not MTA. The mails/spam were collected from
some server in mbox format and fed to SA using --mbox switch. The
size of msgs was not altered in any fashion - just the usual size of
incoming spam/mails
If you're interested in testing/tuning spamassassin for heavy loads
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:55 AM, poifgh wrote:
I ran freshly build SA with Bayes and DNSBL turned off. Why am I not
seeing
a linear increase in the throughput? Is a file locking creating the
bottleneck? If yes, which particular file is being locked? If no,
what could
be the reason for this?
On Jul 31, 2009, at 2:53 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
rich...@buzzhost.co.ukrich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with that if they did not
fill
their gay little boxes with hardware rubbish from the floors of MSI
and
supermicro.
On Jul 31, 2009, at 9:25 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
... dropping in here and making jokes at such low hanging fruit.
Make all the jokes at Barracuda's expense that you like, complain
about them all you like, just avoid offensive language.
From: Matt Kettler mkettler...@verizon.net
Sent: Friday, 2009/July/31 04:26
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:53 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
rich...@buzzhost.co.ukrich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
...
Richard -- please watch
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:33 PM, jdow wrote:
Given that profanity is the effort of a small mind to express itself
I have a feeling he's going to receive his third and final warning any
time now, Matt
Given that nothing that richard said is not anything I've heard on,
say, prime time TV or... a
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:37, LuKremekrem...@kreme.com wrote:
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:33 PM, jdow wrote:
Given that profanity is the effort of a small mind to express itself
I have a feeling he's going to receive his third and final warning any
time now, Matt
Given that nothing that richard
LuKreme said the following on 7/31/09 3:27 PM:
Richard -- please watch your language. This is a public mailing
list, and offensive language here is inappropriate.
I dunno, 'gay' isn't that offensive.
Gay is *not* a synonym for stupid.
I do take offense to the term being used in that
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
email me off list as I've just been
banned for upsetting a sponsor LOL
Richard, this has nothing to do with Barracuda. They have no influence
over my opinions whatsoever. I don't work for Apache or Barracuda, or
any company sponsored by either.Neither Apache
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:41:47AM -0700, poifgh wrote:
Henrik K wrote:
Yeah, given that my 4x3Ghz box masscheck peaks at 22 msgs/sec, without
Net/AWL/Bayes. But that's the 3.3 SVN ruleset.. wonder what version was
used
and any nondefault rules/settings? Certainly sounds strange that
I am sorry, I did not provide any statistics of the machine involved.
CPU - 8 cores with each core 2327 MHz
RAM - 16GB
Afair its has 7200RPM disk - 2TB.
Yes, people were right in indicating AWL could be the problem. turning off
AWL results in near linear scaling of SA as we increase number of
I havent tried with sa-compile yet - I can give it a shot
--
Henrik K wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:41:47AM -0700, poifgh wrote:
Henrik K wrote:
Yeah, given that my 4x3Ghz box masscheck peaks at 22 msgs/sec, without
Net/AWL/Bayes. But that's the 3.3 SVN ruleset.. wonder what
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 17:37 -0400, Glenn Sieb wrote:
LuKreme said the following on 7/31/09 3:27 PM:
Richard -- please watch your language. This is a public mailing
list, and offensive language here is inappropriate.
I dunno, 'gay' isn't that offensive.
Gay is *not* a synonym for
From: LuKreme krem...@kreme.com
Sent: Friday, 2009/July/31 12:30
On Jul 31, 2009, at 9:25 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
... dropping in here and making jokes at such low hanging fruit.
Make all the jokes at Barracuda's expense that you like,
From: LuKreme krem...@kreme.com
Sent: Friday, 2009/July/31 12:37
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:33 PM, jdow wrote:
Given that profanity is the effort of a small mind to express itself
I have a feeling he's going to receive his third and final warning any
time now, Matt
Given that nothing that
From: poifgh abhinav.pat...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, 2009/July/31 19:47
I am sorry, I did not provide any statistics of the machine involved.
CPU - 8 cores with each core 2327 MHz
RAM - 16GB
Afair its has 7200RPM disk - 2TB.
One disk you might consider a striped array to get disk speed.
50 matches
Mail list logo
