You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by scohen <sc...@scohen.mysticjj.com> on 2004/09/14 15:36:47 UTC
any performance benefit to SA 3.0?
I've read through the benefits to SA 3.0 but I don't see any mention of
performance. I was wondering:
A) Does SA 3.0 use less memory/CPU then SA 2.64?
B) Does SA 3.0 take less time to decide if an email is spam then SA 2.64?
C) Does SA 3.0 do a better job of identifying spam with its default
configuration then SA 2.64?
Thank you for your time.
Steve Cohen
Re: any performance benefit to SA 3.0?
Posted by Brook Humphrey <ba...@webmedic.net>.
On Tuesday 14 September 2004 06:36, scohen wrote:
> I've read through the benefits to SA 3.0 but I don't see any mention of
> performance. I was wondering:
>
> A) Does SA 3.0 use less memory/CPU then SA 2.64?
cant say for others but in my case and from what I have read from the list.
cpu is about the same sometimes a little less sometimes a little more. Memory
is reduced if you use allot of custom rules chris santare has now done away
with big evil and you can use surbl lists to replace those.
At any rate the memory usage is reduced under those set of criteria.
> B) Does SA 3.0 take less time to decide if an email is spam then SA 2.64?
I have not payed attention to this and cant comment.
> C) Does SA 3.0 do a better job of identifying spam with its default
> configuration then SA 2.64?
Yes. I have a bunch of custom rules and my weight is not the normal either.
For me before a bunch of html email were getting falsely tagged and for the
last month or two before I switched about a month ago. There were allot of
spams getting through because bays was just not working very well.
With 3.0 installed beys works better. I'm not sure how but it just works. I
get an occasional false positive but for maybe a month now i don't think i
have gotten even one spam in my email box. And only 1 legitimate false
positive. The other two or three are html email news letters that I like to
read but others might consider them spam.
My stats are that Just for me I get about 500 legit emails a day and around
600 - 800 spams a day. I don't think I ever receive fewer than this accept
for maybe on weekends when id drops to 200 legit but the spams never drop.
My legit email has gone as high as about 1000 a day and my spam email has
gone as high as about 1000 a day.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Steve Cohen
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> ScannedBy: ScanMail V 0.92.9 http://www.webmedic.net
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-
Brook Humphrey
Mobile PC Medic, 420 1st, Cheney, WA 99004, 509-235-9107
http://www.webmedic.net, bah@webmedic.net, bah@linux-mandrake.com
Holiness unto the Lord
-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-
Re: any performance benefit to SA 3.0?
Posted by Kenneth Porter <sh...@sewingwitch.com>.
--On Tuesday, September 14, 2004 9:36 AM -0400 scohen
<sc...@scohen.mysticjj.com> wrote:
> A) Does SA 3.0 use less memory/CPU then SA 2.64?
I saw some memory leaks corrected on the dev list. Might be important in
spamd.
RE: any performance benefit to SA 3.0?
Posted by Lucas Albers <ad...@cs.montana.edu>.
Can you also get a performance boost ifyou use the unix socket instead of
the tcp socket?
Someone mentioned this feature back in teh 2.6x era, but I could never get
it to work.
This assumes that spamd is running on the local machine.
Chris Blaise said:
>
> The biggest performance benefit you'll see is if you use spamd. The
> pre-forking of children makes an incredible amount of difference.
>
> We ran tests with networking and bayes disabled and the improvement
> was over 2x.
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: scohen [mailto:scohen@scohen.mysticjj.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 7:37 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: any performance benefit to SA 3.0?
>
> I've read through the benefits to SA 3.0 but I don't see any mention of
> performance. I was wondering:
>
> A) Does SA 3.0 use less memory/CPU then SA 2.64?
> B) Does SA 3.0 take less time to decide if an email is spam then SA 2.64?
> C) Does SA 3.0 do a better job of identifying spam with its default
> configuration then SA 2.64?
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Steve Cohen
>
>
--
Luke Computer Science System Administrator
Security Administrator,College of Engineering
Montana State University-Bozeman,Montana
RE: any performance benefit to SA 3.0?
Posted by Chris Blaise <cb...@esoft.com>.
The biggest performance benefit you'll see is if you use spamd. The
pre-forking of children makes an incredible amount of difference.
We ran tests with networking and bayes disabled and the improvement
was over 2x.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: scohen [mailto:scohen@scohen.mysticjj.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 7:37 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: any performance benefit to SA 3.0?
I've read through the benefits to SA 3.0 but I don't see any mention of
performance. I was wondering:
A) Does SA 3.0 use less memory/CPU then SA 2.64?
B) Does SA 3.0 take less time to decide if an email is spam then SA 2.64?
C) Does SA 3.0 do a better job of identifying spam with its default
configuration then SA 2.64?
Thank you for your time.
Steve Cohen