Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal?

Oh, I wiped the bayes data and started over already once, it isn't (or shouldn't be) that big a deal. Disk performance: seems OK to me. # diskinfo -t /dev/aacd0 /dev/aacd0 512 # sectorsize 73295462400 # mediasize in bytes (68G) 143155200 #

Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal?

On 31 Oct 2017, at 7:27 (-0400), David Gessel wrote: > >> bayes_file_mode 0777 > > Don't do that. I know the SiteWideBayes page recommends that, but it's wrong. > It's a bad idea to EVER make ANY file mode 0777 on any normal system. > Something mangled your Bayes DB. Anything

Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal?

Original Message Subject: Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal? From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Date: Tue Oct 31 2017 23:05:23 GMT+0300 (AST) >

Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal?

sic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal? From: David Gessel <ges...@blackrosetech.com> To: David Jones <djo...@ena.com>, users@spamassassin.apache.org Date: Thu Nov 02 2017 01:29:42 GMT+0300 (AST) > Oh, I wiped the ba

Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal?

0 (AST) >>> On 31.10.17 01:35, David Gessel wrote: >>>> amavisd-new-2.11.0_2,1 >>>> I'm finding the command /usr/local/bin/sa-learn --spam --showdots >>>> /mail/blackrosetech.com/gessel/.Junk/{cur,new} is taking a while to > >>> if you use ama

Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal? Probably related to fix for bug 7191

Original Message Subject: Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal? NYTProf results TxRep.pm 1720440 vs 1651114 From: RW To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Date: Tue Nov 07

Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal? NYTProf results TxRep.pm 1720440 vs 1651114

FreeBSD is currently installing TxRep.pm rev 1651114 from Jan 12 15:17:46 2015 (it is the only revision that has only whitespace differences, all leading padding, there are code differences between installed and 1650327 (previous) and 1678017 (next). The most recent is 1720440 from Dec 16

Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal?

4/2017 08:09 AM, David Gessel wrote: >> so days later, still chunking away, not making much progress. >> >> If I kill the process (doesn't stop sa-learn, just kills current script), it >> always returns >>   ^Cplugin: eval failed: interrupted at /usr/local/bin/sa-learn

very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal?

FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE #0 r322073: Sat Aug 5 01:44:09 PDT 2017 spamassassin-3.4.1_10 amavisd-new-2.11.0_2,1 I'm finding the command /usr/local/bin/sa-learn --spam --showdots /mail/blackrosetech.com/gessel/.Junk/{cur,new} is taking a while to complete... by a while I mean it

Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal?

n, 30 Oct 2017 22:35:08 -0000, David Gessel <ges...@blackrosetech.com> > wrote: > >> 1) sa-learn seems really, really slow.  Slow enough that spam sometimes >> comes in faster.  This seems far slower than the benchmark results suggest >> is within the range of

Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal?

riginal Message Subject: Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal? From: Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> To: David Gessel <ges...@blackrosetech.com>, users@spamassassin.apache.org Date: Tue Oct 31 2017 06:12:43

Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal?

Original Message Subject: Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal? From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Date: Tue Oct 31 2017 13:21:10 GMT+0300 (AST) > >

Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per token really, really slow or roughly normal?

users@spamassassin.apache.org Date: Tue Oct 31 2017 11:27:47 GMT+0300 (AST) > On 31.10.17 01:35, David Gessel wrote: >> amavisd-new-2.11.0_2,1 >> I'm finding the command /usr/local/bin/sa-learn --spam --showdots >> /mail/blackrosetech.com/gessel/.Junk/{cur,new} is taking a while to > >

Re: TxRep increases sa-learn processing time exponentially

check https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7164 My amateur analysis was summarized in this message https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/201711.mbox/browser On 26/02/2019 19.30, Nix wrote: > On 26 Feb 2019, n...@esperi.org.uk said: > >> On 11 Feb 2019,

Re: TxRep increases sa-learn processing time exponentially

Nix, That's probably a reasonable path for now, I'm using TxRep with the diff I posted but not on a large mail server.   Thanks for the insight. -David On 27/02/2019 17.27, Nix wrote: > On 27 Feb 2019, David Gessel told this: > >> check https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/sho