Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

ethan (3163)

  reversethis-{ed. ... rap.nov.olissat}

Being a 25-year old chap living in the western-most town of Germany. Stuying communication and information science and being a huge fan of XS-related things.

Journal of ethan (3163)

Thursday May 22, 2003
01:51 AM

Spamassassin and ressources

[ #12363 ]

Woaw! This morning I was virtually unable to boot into my system. Obviously this night more emails were sent to me than Spamassassin was able to deal with. When finally 'top' came up, I saw about 30 or so 'spamd' processes and it took about 15 minutes till all mails were processed (but I had to use SysRq to reboot in between because of a lock-up and the second attempt ended with X and mysqld being killed because no memory was left).

Then the bright idea occured to me to rearrange my .procmailrc. Initially it read:

        | spamc :0:
        * ^X-Spam-Flag: YES
        IN.spam :0
        * ^Delivered-to: mailing list
        p5p :0
        * ^Delivered-to: mailing list

        # all other mail-sorting rules followed

By moving some of the mailings-lists that produce a lot of traffic (p5porters, etc.) in front of 'spamd', I now hope that those mails are no longer processed by Spamassassin. At least the porters-list is guaranteed to be spam-free. Not sure about though.

I think that Spamassassin needs an in-built ressource-limiter like: never spawn more than 30 processed, never use more than 50% of available memory and CPU altogether. I really don't care if I have to wait some time for all my mails to be checked and sorted into the respective mailboxes in the morning. However, what I care about is if my system stands still for 15 minutes and starts killing processes.

Anyway, Nicholas' suggestion to use Spamassassin as a real-world replacement for perlbench is a very good idea!

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Nicholas' suggestion to use Spamassassin

    Link! Link! My ego demands all the publicity it can get.

    The suggestion is in this message to perl5-porters []. It's a reply to a question from Alan Burlison asking about good perl performance benchmarks [].

  • Yeah, spamassassin should be the last thing in your procmailrc, after all the lists are filtered out.

    The other thing that helps is if you mark your local mail delivery as expensive. At least with sendmail you can do this, don't know about others. The effect is that only one mail at a time will be delivered. Doesn't choke your box so much. Means I still don't have to upgrade my 16Mb 486 linux box. :-)
  • Shouldn't happen (Score:3, Informative)

    by Matts (1087) on 2003.05.22 6:40 (#20402) Journal
    If it's happening it's a bug. Find out what mails caused it to slow down and submit a bug report and attach the mails in question.

    And turn off network checks. They can be very slow.

    And make sure you're using the latest release. There are often a number of timeout (network check related) fixes in each release. And we test the other rules extensively for performance issues.

    SpamAssassin is slow, but it really shouldn't kill your box.
    • If it's happening it's a bug. Find out what mails caused it to slow down and submit a bug report and attach the mails in question.

      Oh, that didn't even occur to me. I'll try to watch spamassassin more carefully and see whether particularly slow runs can be pinned down on certain messages. This morning I had the impression that it was simply due to the fact that about 100 messages were to be processed (in 'top' one spamd process was quickly replaced by a new one; so each single run appeared to be pretty f
      • Another thing to try is leave on the network checks that work well, and turn the rest off (set their score to zero).

        I'd list the ones I think you should leave on, but I'm lazy :)
    • What kills SpamAssassin dead, or at least cripples my box, is when Vipul's Razor is off-line for some reason. That's the thing that makes the spamd processes stack up really badly. Not SpamAssassin's fault, definitely, though it does (or did) have issues not really timing out the way it should. (Which may well have been an issue with my box, for all I know)

      Procmail filtering the known-good (or and stuff so SpamAssassin has less to deal with is always a good th
  • Might have been the 30sec timeout waiting for a response from the ORBS list.

    score RCVD_IN_ORBS 0
    in your file, word is it's dead and probably dead for good.

    Processing went from 30+ secs to 1-2secs after I did this.
    • That is worth an attempt. I'll see how spamassassin behaves now that I have a lot of my mails not passed through it. If it is still sluggish, I'll start weeding out some of the tests...RCVD_IN_ORBS looks like a good candidate.

      Btw: my university also has spamassassin installed so right now my mails effectively get checked twice. Today I learnt that they are increasing some ressources. An official said that currently about 50% of all mails passed through their servers is spam and with the current setup it's