> > > Out of addled curiosity (not pointing specifically at you David) why
> has
> > > nobody mentioned the traditional "SpamAssassin is slow" mantra, "Try
> > > more memory?"
> >
> > I think because memory does not seem to be an issue for me. I have 1GB
> RAM
> > and each spamd process sits at around 34MB. I don't have any swapping at
> > all. I could throw another gig in, but that doesn't really seem to be
> the
> > problem from what I can tell. Am I overlooking something?
>
> Oh, possibly a DNS timeout on a BL that has gone away?
This wouldn't cause CPU burnage, would it? From what people have told me
thus far, this would not have any relationship to CPU resources (although of
course it'd slow down overall processing). In any case, my SA is just a
stock install of 3.0.1, so I doubt this is an issue.
> Limit the number of spamds that can be run?
Yeah, I do that. I can only get away with 5 children, otherwise the machine
grinds to a practical halt. From what I've read, a machine like this (2.8G
HT, 1G RAM) should be able to run even 30 children without much trouble,
which is why I've been scratching my head..... and I've not found any answers
thus far. Hmph.
> Are you running any really big (and obsolete) rule sets like BigEvil?
> {^_^}
Nope, like I said, stock 3.0.1.
Thank you!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
