LeoLinux
Well-Known Member
Performance
-----------
So how much faster is this than just using 'spamassassin'? Well, on my 400MHz
K6-2 mail server, spamassassin process a 11689 byte message in about 3.36
seconds, spamc/spamd processes the same message in about 0.86 seconds, or about
4 times faster. With bigger messages, the difference is less pronounced; a
115855 byte message takes about 5 seconds with spamassassin, and 2.5 seconds
with spamc/spamd, or about 2 times faster. However, if many messages are being
processed in parallel, the spamc/spamd combination will likely be much more
efficient, since spamassassin has much higher overhead starting up, and will
consume more non-shared memory than will spamc/spamd. For example, on the
115855 byte message, spamc consumes *no* heap memory (and very little on the
stack), where spamassassin uses over 15MB of heap space and a peak of 3.5M.
In processing the 115855 byte message 10 times in parallel, spamd uses just
22M of heap, with a peak of only 2.5M spamassassin would have used 150M
total, and a peak of up to 35M to do this same job.
Regarding how much resources to allocate for spamd, Francesco Potorti reports
'On a Sun Ultra60 with 512MB memory, I found that 20 is a reasonable number
(for --max-children), and maybe it could be increased. In fact, the memory
footprint of a single Perl interpreter for spamd is about 20MB, but the total
memory occupied by several concurrent spamd processes is not much higher. In
peak activity periods, with load average around 15, more than 13 spamd
processes running or sleeping, and many other amavis and sendmail processes
active, the total memory used was around 350MB, plus about 200MB on swap.'
-----------
So how much faster is this than just using 'spamassassin'? Well, on my 400MHz
K6-2 mail server, spamassassin process a 11689 byte message in about 3.36
seconds, spamc/spamd processes the same message in about 0.86 seconds, or about
4 times faster. With bigger messages, the difference is less pronounced; a
115855 byte message takes about 5 seconds with spamassassin, and 2.5 seconds
with spamc/spamd, or about 2 times faster. However, if many messages are being
processed in parallel, the spamc/spamd combination will likely be much more
efficient, since spamassassin has much higher overhead starting up, and will
consume more non-shared memory than will spamc/spamd. For example, on the
115855 byte message, spamc consumes *no* heap memory (and very little on the
stack), where spamassassin uses over 15MB of heap space and a peak of 3.5M.
In processing the 115855 byte message 10 times in parallel, spamd uses just
22M of heap, with a peak of only 2.5M spamassassin would have used 150M
total, and a peak of up to 35M to do this same job.
Regarding how much resources to allocate for spamd, Francesco Potorti reports
'On a Sun Ultra60 with 512MB memory, I found that 20 is a reasonable number
(for --max-children), and maybe it could be increased. In fact, the memory
footprint of a single Perl interpreter for spamd is about 20MB, but the total
memory occupied by several concurrent spamd processes is not much higher. In
peak activity periods, with load average around 15, more than 13 spamd
processes running or sleeping, and many other amavis and sendmail processes
active, the total memory used was around 350MB, plus about 200MB on swap.'
Zuletzt bearbeitet: