Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 10:17:29PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:57:58 +0800
> Cameron Patrick <cameron@patrick.wattle.id.au> wrote:
> > 20-40 messages per /HOUR/? Spamassassin takes <1s to filter a message
> > on my desktop, so presumably reasonably recent hardware should be able
> > to manage 20-40 per minute...
>
> On my machine SA takes just shy of 2s per message. 667Mhz Coppermine. So
> I'd wager ~1800 messages per hour or 43200 messages a day. Of course this
> machine is also running a slew of other processes at the same time (router,
> web, ftp, pop, imap, smtp, KDE dekstop, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah,
> blah) so those figures might be a bit low. So, Craig says over the last week
> he's rejected or processed 25130 messages. Just over a half-day's work on my
> 6+ year old machine. To get it to the point where a machine couldn't handle
> his load it would have to handle less than 3600 messages a day which equates
> to a mail a minute. So, 2s w/PIII-667Mhz that would be 30 times slower. I'm
> having a hard time trying to guess what would be 30 times slower than my
> 667Mhz. I'm losing it in the 586 -> 486 transition. Of course RAM speeds
> also bog things down in there.
i think you need to realise that bursty loads are a completely different
thing to constant sustained load.
bursts are easy to deal with...things just slow down for a little while, and
the system catches up and recovers when the burst of activity is over.
sustained load is much harder, because everything slows down forever and it
just keeps getting worse with no idle periods for the system to catch up.
> However I'm having a hard time believing that Craig's running his mail
> machine on anything under a 586.
celeron 450 with 512MB and several old drives.
adequate, but getting a bit old. i have a dual p3-450 motherboard lying around
that i'll replace it with One Of These Days<tm>, that'll be adequate for a few
more years.
it also does a lot more than just process mail. web, ftp, dns, uucp, etc.
until recently it was a relays.osirusoft.com secondary name-server. that
chewed up about 460MB of RAM in bind. it's under a lot less load now than it
was, firstly because i moved the osirusoft secondary to another machine (with
forwarder zone entries in my bind config) and then because osirusoft died
(which dramatically reduced the number of DNS requests it was handling).
craig
Reply to: