Re: Parallelizing Spam Assassin

Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0700, poifgh wrote:
> [...]
>> I ran freshly build SA with Bayes and DNSBL turned off. Why am I not
>> seeing
>> a linear increase in the throughput? Is a file locking creating the
> Because the bottleneck is not (only) the CPUs?
> Run `vmstat 1` or similar to see (or at least get an idea;-) if the
> workload is I/O bound or CPU-bound or ....
> 
>> bottleneck? If yes, which particular file is being locked? If no, what
>> could
> Maybe. The default "store in files" drivers locks the DBs exclusively
> for each access.
> 
>> be the reason for this?
> Switch the DB backend to some MySQL or PostgreSQL (or whatever you like
> using from the "supported" ones). Run that on the very same machine and
> compare the numbers with the above.
> 

Running 'top' with a single SA process running gives 12.5% CPU utilization
which makes sense since one core is fully utilized at this point out of 8
cores. The SA process reports 100% util for that CPU

When fork goes to 8, each individual CPU is utilized from 30-70%  mostly
staying about 30 and only a few reaching 70.

I can vmstat to check out the IO which I dont think should be a problem -
the disks are fast enough to deliver order of magnitudes more reads than 50
msgs/sec.


Can you elaborate on 'store in files'? What are these files, what are they
used for - can they be turned off?

Thnx
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Parallelizing-Spam-Assassin-tp24751958p24760163.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.