[Mimedefang] MIMEDefang + spamd

[John Scully]

On any system with a lot of rule sets SA represents about 90% of the total
message prosessing time.  C vs perl makes a difference on that part.

Trust me - I used a lot of time checks to make sure it was worth it.  spamd
made a big difference over embedded perl, not to mention the differeence in
ram used.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David F. Skoll" <dfs at roaringpenguin.com>
To: <mimedefang at lists.roaringpenguin.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] MIMEDefang + spamd


>
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, John Scully wrote:
>
> > 1) The compiled C spamd processes messages faster then the perl module.
>
> I can't believe that.  The message processing is still done in Perl,
> after all.
>
> > 2) We run DCC via dccifd before SA and don't bother running SA if DCC
has
> > the message listed.
>
> That probably is what helps.
>
> > 3) We check account status, quota, blacklists etc before running SA
>
> And that.
>
> > These last two items mean that SA is run on only about 1 out of 4
messages -
> > epecially when we are under some sort of dictionary spam attack.  We
have 60
> > MD slaves runing, but only 15 SA threads (and it never ties up all 15).
> > Since we run a LOT of custom rule sets each SA thread is about 50M, so
if I
> > had SA embedded in each MD slave SA would be consuming 3G of memory
instead
> > of 750M.
>
> If you use the embedded Perl interpreter, almost all of that memory
> should be shared by all the slaves.
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
> _______________________________________________
> Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca
> MIMEDefang mailing list
> MIMEDefang at lists.roaringpenguin.com
> http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
>
>