On 7/27/08 at 8:28 AM -0700 jdow wrote: >These are important results. They show that you have a plenty fast >enough machine for 100,000 emails per day, although given the fact >that daytime is pretty bad compared to night time you'd probably see >significant slowdowns in throughput during the day as the machine >overloads. You'd be in deadly trouble with 200,000 messages filtered.
Ron Smith's machine could easily handle 200,000 messages filtered per day. I know, I've got one just like it. >The first result is pure throughput for spamd. Figure most of that >.354 seconds is CPU time for spamd. That gives you an upper limit on >what the machine is likely to be able to handle, 86400/.354 messages >per day. Of course you have other things running as well. So the >nearly 250,000 message capacity isn't really there. Figure it's maybe >100,000 max if the MTA and other utilities are running. Of course that is if the machine is only running ONE spamd process. He is running 4 at the moment. >Earlier results you produced showed that spamd is using a fairly >nominal amount of memory for your installation, 50 megs a pop. Actually it is closer to 25M a pop. Check his top results in his email of 7/25/08 at 9:02 PM -0400. PID proc user CPU Thrds Real Mem Vir Mem 73445 perl nobody 0.0 1 25.79 MB 618.09 MB 156 perl root 0.0 1 24.55 MB 608.68 MB 71709 perl nobody 0.0 1 26.82 MB 618.35 MB >I still say your readings on the Activewhazzit that Apple provides are >outrageously out of line. Something has it displaying numbers an order >of magnitude bigger than seem realistic compared to 'top' readings. I use Active Monitor constantly and the data displayed is identical to what is displayed in top. It's a very useful application. I think the part of the problem was not understanding what the numbers represent. Ron has plenty of available memory, as in more than 80% of it. Nedry
