Posted by: bfaber
Posted on: 2004-09-09 15:45:00
Ok.. I'm curious. What kinda machine are you running the spam through? I heard it mentioned some time ago that whatever you're using sucked lots of ram/cpu.
'Was just curious how it was holding up.
btf
Posted by: will
Posted on: 2004-09-09 16:05:00
It's relatively beefy. We still need to make some improvements, including using a RAMdisk for the temporary files the scanner uses. This should improve performance.
So far, the load is pretty good on the test machine - but the test is still fairly limited in scale.
"uptime"
15:59:56 up 91 days, 42 min, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.13, 0.09
"free" (most of the 1.5 Gb of memory is being used, but the machine's not swapping).
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 1549752 1503908 45844 0 56092 381372
-/+ buffers/cache: 1066444 483308
Swap: 1052248 10400 1041848
So far, pretty zippy... but it's not under a really heavy load either. We'll start to get a better feel for it as the test expands.
Posted by: will
Posted on: 2004-09-09 16:07:00
Oh - and this is a dual 1.8 Ghz Xenon, 1.5 Gb RAM, gig of swap (more should be added).