I am sorry, I did not provide any statistics of the machine involved. CPU - 8 cores with each core 2327 MHz RAM - 16GB Afair its has 7200RPM disk - 2TB.
Yes, people were right in indicating AWL could be the problem. turning off AWL results in near linear scaling of SA as we increase number of processes. My input is more than a 100K [mostly] spams which allowed me to have each run last for several minutes and then take an avg to get #msgs/sec With AWL, bayes and DNSBL turned off - i get about 24 msgs/sec for 1 fork and 166 msgs/sec for 8 fork with awl on and bayes and DNSBL off, i get about 22 msgs/sec for 1 fork and 50 msgs/sec for 8 fork Thnx everyone for helping out. -- Henrik K wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:41:47AM -0700, poifgh wrote: > > > I did not say it was a problem. I was just wondering how fast CPU/memory > you > have, since my 3Ghz AMD doesn't seem to keep up. > > I just tested with fresh 3.2.5 install, and running 500 mail mbox with > single core resulted in 11 msgs / sec. Then I used sa-compile, and it > raised > to 15. Did you use it also? > > Of course your mailbox could be a lot different, so hard to compare. > >> cores to run different SA parallely why doesnt the throughput scale >> linearly >> .. I expect for 8 cores with 8 SA running simultaneously the number to be >> 150+ msgs/sec but it is 1/3rd at 50 msgs/sec > > Anyway as people have already said here, disable AWL: > > use_auto_whitelist 0 > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Parallelizing-Spam-Assassin-tp24751958p24765545.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
