You are correct and I apologize to the SA team. I cannot characterize the problem as a bug - SA 3.0 is just much slower and resource intensive than SA 2.64. If I understand you correctly you are just testing Bayes. Our production testing involved using SA as a whole. And I again suggest that SA 3.0 be compared against previous versions (like 2.64) in a real world production test. Maybe the answer is to publish a cheat sheet of new features in 3.0 that need to be turned off in order to achieve the throughput of 2.64.
At 01:41 AM 10/28/2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:09:57AM -0400, Jeff Koch wrote: > > We figure that we'd have to reduce the email load on each server by 50% in > order to use SA 3.0 and thereby need twice as many servers. However, we're > going to wait until the SA developers take the memory and load issues > seriously and fix the problem. Maybe if enough users complain they'll do > some high volume production test comparisons of 3.0 with previous versions > and sort out the problem. >
I believe this is an entirely unfair characterization of the development team. In all cases where recent memory issues have cropped we've worked to resolve them. As for load and speed issues, I personally take these very seriously. I would guess I benchmark bayes on the average of twice a day. The benchmark pumps 300+ msgs per minute through my server, 6.5+ million SQL queries averaging around 3200 queries per second on my MySQL server.
If anyone has a reproducible memory or load issue I highly encourage you to file a bug so that we can start tracking it down.
Michael
Best Regards,
Jeff Koch, Intersessions
