This is a discussion on Re: Slow processing with 3.2.4 - SpamAssassin ; Yes, the hardware is identical. The MX records are both '10', and the volume of mail is slightly LESS on the 3.2.4 machine over the 3.1.9 it's taking more time to process less mail on the newer machine. We have ...
Yes, the hardware is identical. The MX records are both '10', and the
volume of mail is slightly LESS on the 3.2.4 machine over the 3.1.9 it's
taking more time to process less mail on the newer machine.
We have 2.5 Gig memory on each machine. Our graphs show that we are
using about 1.5 Gig of this. Swap usage is the same on both machines at
Thanks for the suggestions. They are good factors to consider.
Kris Deugau wrote:
> Spam Admin wrote:
>> I have two mail servers running Spamassassin. One is running 3.1.9
>> and the other 3.2.4, both with the same set of local rules, plus the
>> standard rules that come with each version.
>> The 'load' on the processors for 3.2.4 is about *4 times more *than
>> the 'load' on 3.1.9.
> I'm assuming the hardware is something resembling identical?
> Otherwise it's really hard to compare.
> -> CPU speed?
> -> Memory?
> -> SA child limit parameters?
> 3.2 sucks down more memory than 3.1; if the hardware is identical but
> the machine running 3.1 shows a small swap usage, the 3.2 machine is
> likely hitting swap a lot harder, causing your high load.
>> Do others have the same problem? Is this a typical change between the
>> pre 3.2.x versions and the current version?
> I don't know about 4x from 3.1.x to 3.2.x, but I certainly avoided
> upgrading from (patched-for-URI-RBLs) 2.64 for a LONG time because of
> the memory load of 3.x.
> Of course, more rules means more CPU load, but the memory load was a
> far larger problem for me; any more memory use on the old machine
> would have pushed the system into swap, which would have *really*
> killed performance...