You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Henri van Riel <sp...@vanriel.xs4all.nl> on 2004/11/07 19:49:52 UTC
Performance.
Hello,
Ok, I admit, mine is not the fastest mail server on the planet but is
this the best performance I'm going to get:
spamd[3164]: identified spam (22.0/5.0) for p3scan:150 in 135.4 seconds, 3920 bytes.
That's 2 minutes and 15+ seconds for an email little over 3k in
size...
I run a small personal mailserver but 90% of my incoming mail is spam
and I'd like to do something about that.
SA is invoked by P3Scan.
--
SA-3.0.1
perl-5.8.5
Linux-2.4.26
Pentium I 166Mhz
64MB RAM - 64MB swap
--
Best regards,
Henri mailto:spamassassin@vanriel.xs4all.nl
Re: Performance.
Posted by Burt <ng...@qogo.com>.
In article <65...@vanriel.xs4all.nl>,
spamassassin@vanriel.xs4all.nl says...
> Ok, I admit, mine is not the fastest mail server on the planet but is
> this the best performance I'm going to get:
>
> spamd[3164]: identified spam (22.0/5.0) for p3scan:150 in 135.4
> seconds, 3920 bytes.
>
> That's 2 minutes and 15+ seconds for an email little over 3k in
> size...
Any chance that you're using Bayes and that an automated token expiry
occured when this message was scanned??
You could try running sa-learn to forget and then re-learn the message
with debug messages turned on to see how long it takes and if something
weird is going on..
Burt
Re: Performance.
Posted by Mike Burger <mb...@bubbanfriends.org>.
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Ronan wrote:
> [sort of OT]
> mike what type of log file are you running spamstats on??
> whenever i run it it never outputs the number of spams fields ie the
> first two in the columns.
>
> also it doesnt output anything when i run it on exim_mainlog but it
> outputs all but the first two fields when i run it on /var/log/syslog
> (ie where all the spamd output is)
> any ideas??
>
> tha\nks
> > Total number of emails processed by the spam filter : 81
> > Number of spams : 12 ( 14.81%)
> > Number of clean messages : 69 ( 85.19%)
> > Average message analysis time : 9.96 seconds
> > Average spam analysis time : 7.94 seconds
> > Average clean message analysis time : 10.31 seconds
> > Average message score : -2.87
> > Average spam score : 14.57
> > Average clean message score : -5.90
> > Total spam volume : 39 kbytes
> > Total clean volume : 417 kbytes
> >
> > This is actually a little high, but one of the last messages my server
> > sent out was fairly large, and went out to over 150 people from a
> > listserv.
Hi, Ronan.
I'm running spamstats.pl against /var/log/maillog...that's where I have
syslog configured to put all mail related logging.
--
Mike Burger
http://www.bubbanfriends.org
Visit the Dog Pound II BBS
telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or http://dogpound2.citadel.org
To be notified of updates to the web site, visit
http://www.bubbanfriends.org/mailman/listinfo/site-update, or send a
message to:
site-update-request@bubbanfriends.org
with a message of:
subscribe
Re: Performance.
Posted by Ronan <r....@qub.ac.uk>.
Mike Burger wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Henri van Riel wrote:
>
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>Ok, I admit, mine is not the fastest mail server on the planet but is
>>this the best performance I'm going to get:
>>
>>spamd[3164]: identified spam (22.0/5.0) for p3scan:150 in 135.4 seconds, 3920 bytes.
>>
>>That's 2 minutes and 15+ seconds for an email little over 3k in
>>size...
>>
>>I run a small personal mailserver but 90% of my incoming mail is spam
>>and I'd like to do something about that.
>>
>>SA is invoked by P3Scan.
>>
>>--
>>SA-3.0.1
>>perl-5.8.5
>>Linux-2.4.26
>>Pentium I 166Mhz
>>64MB RAM - 64MB swap
>
>
> P5 166 with only 64MB RAM and swap? Yeah...that's the performance you're
> going to get.
>
> My system is an Athlon 2GHz, with half a gig of RAM, and I'm seeing
> today's performance like this:
>
[sort of OT]
mike what type of log file are you running spamstats on??
whenever i run it it never outputs the number of spams fields ie the
first two in the columns.
also it doesnt output anything when i run it on exim_mainlog but it
outputs all but the first two fields when i run it on /var/log/syslog
(ie where all the spamd output is)
any ideas??
tha\nks
> Total number of emails processed by the spam filter : 81
> Number of spams : 12 ( 14.81%)
> Number of clean messages : 69 ( 85.19%)
> Average message analysis time : 9.96 seconds
> Average spam analysis time : 7.94 seconds
> Average clean message analysis time : 10.31 seconds
> Average message score : -2.87
> Average spam score : 14.57
> Average clean message score : -5.90
> Total spam volume : 39 kbytes
> Total clean volume : 417 kbytes
>
> This is actually a little high, but one of the last messages my server
> sent out was fairly large, and went out to over 150 people from a
> listserv.
>
--
Regards
Ronan McGlue
==============
Analyst/Programmer
Information Services
Queens University Belfast
BT7 1NN
Re[2]: Performance.
Posted by Henri van Riel <sp...@vanriel.xs4all.nl>.
Hello Dan,
Sunday, November 7, 2004, 8:13:17 PM, you wrote:
> I'm running on a Celeron 1.8G with only 256M of ram. 2,000 emails/day.
> Average elapsed time for SA scans: 2,988.43 ms. (Max: 94 seconds. Second
> highest: 21 seconds) I'd say you've got something wrong<g>.
Since there aren't so many emails traveling through that server of
mine (it's a test setup really, the target platform will be something
like you have, haven't decided yet), i've decreased the number of child
processes (threads) to 1 by setting `-m 1` on the command line. This
increased performance considerably and my average now is somewhere
between 2 and 8 seconds.
spamd[3868]: identified spam (23.3/5.0) for p3scan:150 in 6.7 seconds, 3888 bytes.
I can safely do this because I use SA together with P3Scan so there is
always just one client connecting to spamd, I'm the only one testing.
One child process should be enough, the other four were just wasting
resources...
> I'm running the default ruleset from 3.0.1 distro with:
> score BAYES_00 -4.9
> score BAYES_01 -2.0
> score BAYES_10 -1.5
> score BAYES_20 -1.0
> score BAYES_30 -0.5
> score BAYES_40 0.1
> score BAYES_44 0.7
> score BAYES_50 1.0
> score BAYES_56 1.5
> score BAYES_60 2.1
> score BAYES_70 3.1
> score BAYES_80 4.2
> score BAYES_90 4.9
> score BAYES_99 5.4
> score DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL 4
> score RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 4
> score RCVD_IN_DSBL 4
> score RCVD_IN_SBL 4
> score RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 4
> score RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB 4
> score SPF_FAIL 2
> score SPF_HELO_FAIL 2
> score URIBL_SBL 4
> score URIBL_SBL 4
> score URIBL_WS_SURBL 4
> trusted_networks 172.0.0.0/8
> in my local.cf
I still need to get through *all* of the available documentation and
find out what all that means really... ;) I'm a newbie :$
> Oh, I didn't read far enough to see the machine specs! Ouch!
> Mine (I thought it was a "toy" server, Celeron at that) is probably doing so
> well because I'm on a fairly idle T1 so all the DNS traffic is pretty fast.
> But my "toy" is a lot more than 166 Mhz. A 2Ghz Cheapo CPU/Motherboard/0.5G
> ram is probably $300 or less. Check TigerDirect or somewhere and UPGRADE
> THAT PUPPY!
:) will do! I like my puppy though ;)
--
Henri.
Re: Performance.
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
From: "Loren Wilton" <lw...@earthlink.net>
> > Mine (I thought it was a "toy" server, Celeron at that) is probably
doing
> so
> > well because I'm on a fairly idle T1 so all the DNS traffic is pretty
> fast.
> > But my "toy" is a lot more than 166 Mhz. A 2Ghz Cheapo
> CPU/Motherboard/0.5G
> > ram is probably $300 or less. Check TigerDirect or somewhere and UPGRADE
> > THAT PUPPY!
>
> I agree with the last sentence, but what is really critical here is
memory.
> We ran a P5 166 for about a year before replacing it, and it was dealing
> with most stuff in well under 10 seconds. Abouth twice the mail traffic
the
> OP has. The difference was that we had 256M on the machine rather than
64M.
We still run the P5 166. It takes about 30 to 40 seconds per message on
average. The Athlon "2GHz" piles through the messages in about a second
and small change. It has a megabyte of memory. (You're still processed
on the slow machine. I'm tuning the faster machine and may switch it over
soon.)
> Granted a bigger and faster machine would be nice. But a 166 is plenty
fast
> enough to deal with 2K mail/day if it has a boatload of ram.
More RAM should make a 2:1 to 3:1 improvement in processing time based
on the speeds of the two machine here.
{^_^}
Re: Performance.
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
> Mine (I thought it was a "toy" server, Celeron at that) is probably doing
so
> well because I'm on a fairly idle T1 so all the DNS traffic is pretty
fast.
> But my "toy" is a lot more than 166 Mhz. A 2Ghz Cheapo
CPU/Motherboard/0.5G
> ram is probably $300 or less. Check TigerDirect or somewhere and UPGRADE
> THAT PUPPY!
I agree with the last sentence, but what is really critical here is memory.
We ran a P5 166 for about a year before replacing it, and it was dealing
with most stuff in well under 10 seconds. Abouth twice the mail traffic the
OP has. The difference was that we had 256M on the machine rather than 64M.
If the OP has some spare memory for that beast lying around, I'd plug that
in first and it should do wonders.
Granted a bigger and faster machine would be nice. But a 166 is plenty fast
enough to deal with 2K mail/day if it has a boatload of ram.
Loren
RE: Performance.
Posted by Dan Barker <db...@visioncomm.net>.
I'm running on a Celeron 1.8G with only 256M of ram. 2,000 emails/day.
Average elapsed time for SA scans: 2,988.43 ms. (Max: 94 seconds. Second
highest: 21 seconds) I'd say you've got something wrong<g>.
I'm running the default ruleset from 3.0.1 distro with:
score BAYES_00 -4.9
score BAYES_01 -2.0
score BAYES_10 -1.5
score BAYES_20 -1.0
score BAYES_30 -0.5
score BAYES_40 0.1
score BAYES_44 0.7
score BAYES_50 1.0
score BAYES_56 1.5
score BAYES_60 2.1
score BAYES_70 3.1
score BAYES_80 4.2
score BAYES_90 4.9
score BAYES_99 5.4
score DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL 4
score RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 4
score RCVD_IN_DSBL 4
score RCVD_IN_SBL 4
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 4
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB 4
score SPF_FAIL 2
score SPF_HELO_FAIL 2
score URIBL_SBL 4
score URIBL_SBL 4
score URIBL_WS_SURBL 4
trusted_networks 172.0.0.0/8
in my local.cf
Oh, I didn't read far enough to see the machine specs! Ouch!
Mine (I thought it was a "toy" server, Celeron at that) is probably doing so
well because I'm on a fairly idle T1 so all the DNS traffic is pretty fast.
But my "toy" is a lot more than 166 Mhz. A 2Ghz Cheapo CPU/Motherboard/0.5G
ram is probably $300 or less. Check TigerDirect or somewhere and UPGRADE
THAT PUPPY!
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Burger [mailto:mburger@bubbanfriends.org]
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 1:59 PM
To: Henri van Riel
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Performance.
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Henri van Riel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Ok, I admit, mine is not the fastest mail server on the planet but is
> this the best performance I'm going to get:
>
> spamd[3164]: identified spam (22.0/5.0) for p3scan:150 in 135.4 seconds,
3920 bytes.
>
> That's 2 minutes and 15+ seconds for an email little over 3k in
> size...
>
> I run a small personal mailserver but 90% of my incoming mail is spam
> and I'd like to do something about that.
>
> SA is invoked by P3Scan.
>
> --
> SA-3.0.1
> perl-5.8.5
> Linux-2.4.26
> Pentium I 166Mhz
> 64MB RAM - 64MB swap
P5 166 with only 64MB RAM and swap? Yeah...that's the performance you're
going to get.
My system is an Athlon 2GHz, with half a gig of RAM, and I'm seeing
today's performance like this:
Total number of emails processed by the spam filter : 81
Number of spams : 12 ( 14.81%)
Number of clean messages : 69 ( 85.19%)
Average message analysis time : 9.96 seconds
Average spam analysis time : 7.94 seconds
Average clean message analysis time : 10.31 seconds
Average message score : -2.87
Average spam score : 14.57
Average clean message score : -5.90
Total spam volume : 39 kbytes
Total clean volume : 417 kbytes
This is actually a little high, but one of the last messages my server
sent out was fairly large, and went out to over 150 people from a
listserv.
--
Mike Burger
http://www.bubbanfriends.org
Visit the Dog Pound II BBS
telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or http://dogpound2.citadel.org
To be notified of updates to the web site, visit
http://www.bubbanfriends.org/mailman/listinfo/site-update, or send a
message to:
site-update-request@bubbanfriends.org
with a message of:
subscribe
Re: Performance.
Posted by Mike Burger <mb...@bubbanfriends.org>.
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Henri van Riel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Ok, I admit, mine is not the fastest mail server on the planet but is
> this the best performance I'm going to get:
>
> spamd[3164]: identified spam (22.0/5.0) for p3scan:150 in 135.4 seconds, 3920 bytes.
>
> That's 2 minutes and 15+ seconds for an email little over 3k in
> size...
>
> I run a small personal mailserver but 90% of my incoming mail is spam
> and I'd like to do something about that.
>
> SA is invoked by P3Scan.
>
> --
> SA-3.0.1
> perl-5.8.5
> Linux-2.4.26
> Pentium I 166Mhz
> 64MB RAM - 64MB swap
P5 166 with only 64MB RAM and swap? Yeah...that's the performance you're
going to get.
My system is an Athlon 2GHz, with half a gig of RAM, and I'm seeing
today's performance like this:
Total number of emails processed by the spam filter : 81
Number of spams : 12 ( 14.81%)
Number of clean messages : 69 ( 85.19%)
Average message analysis time : 9.96 seconds
Average spam analysis time : 7.94 seconds
Average clean message analysis time : 10.31 seconds
Average message score : -2.87
Average spam score : 14.57
Average clean message score : -5.90
Total spam volume : 39 kbytes
Total clean volume : 417 kbytes
This is actually a little high, but one of the last messages my server
sent out was fairly large, and went out to over 150 people from a
listserv.
--
Mike Burger
http://www.bubbanfriends.org
Visit the Dog Pound II BBS
telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or http://dogpound2.citadel.org
To be notified of updates to the web site, visit
http://www.bubbanfriends.org/mailman/listinfo/site-update, or send a
message to:
site-update-request@bubbanfriends.org
with a message of:
subscribe