Re: new suid-perl debian security update breaks qmail-scanner!
Quoting Patrick Donker <list@webpagina.nu>:
>>With simscan, everything is dandy!
> What I wanted to ask also is, do you recommend simscan over QS?
Completley depends on the hardware (heard that before!? :).
But I'd still say YES (large, bold letters!).
I love perl more than my girlfriend (well, almost - don't tell her I said
this :). But there is ONE big problem with perl. It eats system resources
like a pig! No matter how much you have, perl just wants more...
If you have something like a dual P4 3.2 with >4Gb memory, you'd STILL
have to reboot every now and then to get all that memory back (perl/QS
doesn't free the memory correctly/propperly).
Simscan is a binary (from C code) so it's MUCH faster starting and if
frees the memory after use - 'you have to', C won't permit it othervise
(well, theory and practise IS different after all :).
There is however ONE problem i stumbled on with Simscan, and i got that
the second day running it... My 'spamd' wasn't running, which made
Simscan (!?!?) fail miserably. On thinks that it could catch that, and
just ignore spamc calling, but it don't (in the version I is using - 1.1).
Simscan have faults and bugs as anything else, but I think it's worth
it - it's so much better on the system resources and so MUCH faster...
> I've
> read about it but dont know which is better....The box I am running my
> stuff on isnt very exciting either; P3 886 with 300something megs of
> ram. Yes I know, more mem should be put in, but that's something I had
> planned doing later...
Then forget QS!!! I can't stress that enough! My dual Ultra SPARC III/750
is _WAY_ faster than yours (not only in pure CPU power - SPARC have a lot
better I/O and memory performance than Intel), and _I_ get into trouble!
Your setup would crash within minutes (if it got the amount of mails _I_
get - roughly 2-3000 / day :).
--
Waco, Texas Nazi cryptographic plutonium kibo president Marxist
Albanian subway class struggle supercomputer jihad killed
counter-intelligence 767
[See http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/index.html for more about this]
Reply to: