Pete/Matt/Andrew,
Thanks for all your wonderful input. Maybe I didn't give it a fair
shake or time enough as mentioned by Pete earlier. I turned it on again about
30 min ago and have seen my system stable, currently it is:
TicToc: 1112391330
Loop: 264
Poll: 445
Jobs: 290
Secs: 307
Msg/Min: 56.6775
Current-Load: 21.4724
Average-Load: 22.4706
These numbers were up around 120 Msg/Min and Current Load at 90+ CPU
is aver. about 17% right now. However, could be skewed a bit since it is
Friday night. I will continue to watch it over the weekend and see how it
goes. Still considering running Win DNS local or BIND 9.3 for NT/2000/2003.
Have a great weekend.
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Colbeck, Andrew
Sent: Fri 4/1/2005 6:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: RE: Re[6]: [sniffer] Persistent Sniffer
Hey, I've got two cents that you're welcome to...
Both Pete and Matt mentioned that Keith's experience was outside the
bounds of the normal experience.
Keith, you could make sure that your setup is valid by setting up
Message Sniffer on your own workstation with srvany, and then manually
running some messages from your held spam folder there. Because you
would test the files manually, you wouldn't need to bother with
installing a whole mail server infrastructure.
If you want to go the extra mile and test what happens when many
instances are called, write a batch file that uses the "start" command
to launch independent copies of your sniffer executable. The persistent
sniffer may well scan messages so fast that it keeps up with the parent
script, so you'd have to experiment with how many sniffer instances
you'd want to invoke.
As for my own experience, my server was on the edge and had significant
disk and cpu pressure. I found that the persistent-mode sniffer created
a noticeable decline in how busy my disk system was. In fact, I used to
have a lot of log corruption in Declude, and this also noticeably
declined.
I also had a bad first experience with the persistent sniffer, and
switch to FireDaemon from SrvAny, and set the start priority for sniffer
to "Above Normal"; I can't prove it, but I'm convinced that without that
setting, Declude starves out other processes such as the persistent
sniffer, and then the other sniffer clients get impatient and process
the files themselves, causing more cpu pressure.
Andrew 8)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 3:03 PM
To: Keith Johnson
Subject: Re[6]: [sniffer] Persistent Sniffer
On Friday, April 1, 2005, 3:37:33 PM, Keith wrote:
<snip/>
KJ> pegged the CPU as you stated. We have batted around running BIND
KJ> for NT/2000 on the local machine, but my fear was overhead of
KJ> another major process running. I don't have any good stats on how
KJ> much CPU/Memory BIND on an Imail Server requires, thus, we have a
KJ> SUN/BIND box local to the switch. Are you aware of any stats on
KJ> this?
No hard data on hand, however a back of the envelope calculation
suggests that you probably have a good chunk of ram left - and that this
will probably expand if you can retire messages more quickly -- that has
a tendency to speed up everything since everything has more room etc.
I've never heard a bad experience with this approach, and I have proven
it several times on otherwise overwhelmed machines. Paradoxically, for
example, my woefully underpowered P2/450 will choke if I don't run bind
locally - even if the DNS server it points at is on the a hot, dedicated
box on the same switch. The minute I put bind on the same box as the
server it recovers nicely.
KJ> We don't run the AVAFTERJM switch. This is done in part due
KJ> to so many of our customers still look at their spam email from time
KJ> to time. We heavily use the ROUTETO and MAILBOX command, thus, if I
KJ> let a virus go through to their to mailbox, they could potentially
KJ> open a virus spam email and hurt themselves.
Understood. What about prescan?
KJ> We defrag each partition every night using Diskeeper and it
KJ> works great. I regularly look at the Sniffer directory to ensure no
KJ> left over .fin files and others that could cause server load.
Sounds good - I like Diskeeper too - won't run a Winx box without it.
KJ> I will
KJ> retry it again tonight and see what type of results I get and post
KJ> them here. It could be as you say, I am on the far side :)
Thanks & Good Luck,
_M
This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information
and (un)subscription instructions go to
http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information
and (un)subscription instructions go to
http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
<<winmail.dat>>
