On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 01:10:59 -0700, "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "Nigel Frankcom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 00:52:58 -0700, "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:46:05 -0700
>>> "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>
>>>> > Hey all!
>>>> >
>>>> > Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
>>>> > have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs ok....will upgrading to 3.1.4 plus
>>>> > the SARE rules tank it? Or am I safe? Thanks all!
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps.
>>>>
>>>> Do not run anything else with a significant memory footprint on the
>>>> system at the same time. Do not use X, of course. Minimize the number
>>>> of children spawned to one.
>>>>
>>>> {^_^} Joanne
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you Joanne :)
>>
>>(I used to run SA on a 256 meg 66 MHz Pentium that was also the firewall.
>>It was erm ahm slow, VERY slow. But it ran. This was in the 2.6.3 days
>>give or take some.)
>>
>>{^_-}
>
>The largest factor to take into consideration is how much mail SA will
>be dealing with. Running a single child will be limiting, if you are
>getting anything more than a few hundred mails per day that hardware
>will be insufficient. You will either hit long delays or mail will be
>passed through without being scanned.
>
><<jdow's plugged nickel's worth>>Based on the bad case I ran his
>machine should do on the order of 10 to 30 seconds per email depending
>on the speed of his processor. At 30 seconds per that gives him the
>capacity, with delays to be sure, for 3000 emails per day. When they
>come in batched there will be several minutes of delay. But for most
>people's needs for a single user 3000 emails is somewhat more than is
>to be expected.
>
>{^_-} Joanne, who has a bad habit if running numbers. And I note he
> might be able to run two instances to get SOME benefit from
> paralleling the DNS lookups.
>
Point conceded :-D
