Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0700, poifgh wrote: > [...] >> I ran freshly build SA with Bayes and DNSBL turned off. Why am I not >> seeing >> a linear increase in the throughput? Is a file locking creating the > Because the bottleneck is not (only) the CPUs? > Run `vmstat 1` or similar to see (or at least get an idea;-) if the > workload is I/O bound or CPU-bound or .... > >> bottleneck? If yes, which particular file is being locked? If no, what >> could > Maybe. The default "store in files" drivers locks the DBs exclusively > for each access. > >> be the reason for this? > Switch the DB backend to some MySQL or PostgreSQL (or whatever you like > using from the "supported" ones). Run that on the very same machine and > compare the numbers with the above. >
Running 'top' with a single SA process running gives 12.5% CPU utilization which makes sense since one core is fully utilized at this point out of 8 cores. The SA process reports 100% util for that CPU When fork goes to 8, each individual CPU is utilized from 30-70% mostly staying about 30 and only a few reaching 70. I can vmstat to check out the IO which I dont think should be a problem - the disks are fast enough to deliver order of magnitudes more reads than 50 msgs/sec. Can you elaborate on 'store in files'? What are these files, what are they used for - can they be turned off? Thnx -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Parallelizing-Spam-Assassin-tp24751958p24760163.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
