also sprach Lars Roland <lroland@gmail.com> [2005.05.22.0000 +0200]:
> On my old Redhat system the hardware could scan around 60.000
> emails pr. hour with an average scan time of 5.6 seconds
> (including time from both ClamAV and Spamassassin) and average
> load of 23.7.
spamassassin 2.x?
> My new Sarge installation on the same hardware scans 40.000 emails
> pr hour with an average scan time of 4.8 but with a load average
> of 57.8.
spamassassin 3.x?
AFAICT, spamassassin 3.x is (a) a lot better, and (b) a *lot* more
resource hungry. I think this would explain your problem. The other
stuff -- SMTP timeouts and slow disk access for unpacks -- are
probably direct consequences, though I may well be wrong.
Did you enable DMA? Check with hdparm and your drives. Or are you
using SCSI?
Maybe you can run bonnie++ on both systems and verify that the
harddisk access is not the bottleneck?
> So as it is now I am a bit baffled by the slowness of Sarge,
This is not sarge, this is a configuration problem somewhere. Even
though "sarge" did not get faster per se, the 2.6 kernel *does*
speed things up a lot.
Another thing I seem to remember from my qmail times is that qmail
and reiserfs did not get along well. You have tried other
filesystems, but all of them were journaled, and I think qmail
doesn't play well with those. Have you tried another MTA, like
postfix? I have administered postfix servers on about the same
hardware has you, taking as much as 100,000 mails per hour at peak
times. Ralf Hildebrandt has a postfix+ext3 howto, which may be
useful even to other MTAs.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
"the good thing about standards is
that there are so many to choose from."
-- andrew s. tanenbaum
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature