Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Marcel Veldhuizen writes:
> At 03:25 19-5-2005, David Vel�squez Restrepo wrote:
> 
> >Q) With spamassassin you need about 20 to 30 seconds per email message and 
> >LOTS of RAM and CPU:
> >    a) TRUE
> >    b) FALSE
> 
> False. It depends on your settings and custom rulesets, but scanning a 
> single message takes about 4-5 seconds on Athlon 800 home box. Of course, 
> suppose it would be scanning 10 messages in parallel, it would take 
> 'longer' per message.
> 
> Memory usage can be quite huge if you have many custom rulesets, because SA 
> 3.0.x forks into several processes which all insist on making their own 
> copy of the ruleset in memory :( When I still used the RDJ bigevil list 
> (amongst others), it would use 96 MB of memory for each SA process.

actually, most of this *is* shared, it's just that linux can no
longer report this accurately.

FALSE, anyway -- as Marcel notes, 20 seconds is waaay too long.

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFCjA9NMJF5cimLx9ARAjjCAKCRIahmvOAnWIOYn6xOlVdN/v7k0wCglTEL
QK8ffMTnbeQP61JfxBTr7Ys=
=oR4Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Simple question TRUE or FALSE

[Marcel Veldhuizen <ma...@subbot.net>]

At 06:00 19-5-2005, Justin Mason wrote:

> > Memory usage can be quite huge if you have many custom rulesets, 
> because SA
> > 3.0.x forks into several processes which all insist on making their own
> > copy of the ruleset in memory :( When I still used the RDJ bigevil list
> > (amongst others), it would use 96 MB of memory for each SA process.
>
>actually, most of this *is* shared, it's just that linux can no
>longer report this accurately.

What makes you think that? Total used memory on my system is consistent 
with SpamAssassin processing not sharing any significant amount of memory. 
Also it reports the memory sharing just fine on applications such as Apache?