Hey all!
Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I have
3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus the SARE
rules tank it? am I safe? Thanks all!
James

From: "James Lay" <jlay (AT) slave-tothe-box (DOT) net>

Hey all!

Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I have
3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus the SARE
rules tank it? am I safe? Thanks all!

Perhaps.

Do not run anything else with a significant memory footprint on the
system at the same time. Do not use X, of course. Minimize the number
of children spawned to one.

{^_^} Joanne

Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
"John D. Hardin" <jhardin (AT) impsec (DOT) orgwrote:

Mon, 7 Aug 2006, James Lay wrote:

Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus
the SARE rules tank it? am I safe? Thanks all!

I'm running 3.1.3 with a bunch of SARE and local rules on my hosted
server, which only has 96MB of RAM and 196MB of swap. It's also
running BIND serving as authoritative for a few domains, and apache
serving static content, but no databases or other fancy stuff.

I have it configured to only spawn one child and run all scans
sequentially, as I don't really care if it takes a couple of minutes
to score a message.

It works reliably, though there's little margin for adding much else.
If there was any less memory I would not be able to run SA.

How much swap do you have? And what else is running on the server?

John,

I have almost 500 megs of swap. And Postfix and SpamAssassin are the
only things running on it. Thanks!

James

Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:46:05 -0700
"jdow" <jdow (AT) earthlink (DOT) netwrote:

From: "James Lay" <jlay (AT) slave-tothe-box (DOT) net>

Hey all!

Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus
the SARE rules tank it? am I safe? Thanks all!

Perhaps.

Do not run anything else with a significant memory footprint on the
system at the same time. Do not use X, of course. Minimize the number
of children spawned to one.

{^_^} Joanne

Thank you Joanne :)

James

James Lay wrote:
Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
"John D. Hardin" <jhardin (AT) impsec (DOT) orgwrote:


>Mon, 7 Aug 2006, James Lay wrote:
>>
>
Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus
the SARE rules tank it? am I safe? Thanks all!

>I'm running 3.1.3 with a bunch of SARE and local rules on my hosted
>server, which only has 96MB of RAM and 196MB of swap. It's also
>running BIND serving as authoritative for a few domains, and apache
>serving static content, but no databases or other fancy stuff.
>>
>I have it configured to only spawn one child and run all scans
>sequentially, as I don't really care if it takes a couple of minutes
>to score a message.
>>
>It works reliably, though there's little margin for adding much else.
>If there was any less memory I would not be able to run SA.
>>
>How much swap do you have? And what else is running on the server?
>>
>
>
John,

I have almost 500 megs of swap. And Postfix and SpamAssassin are the
only things running on it. Thanks!

James

I run with 4 gigs of ram and a separate MySQL server for Nayes.

James Lay wrote:

I have almost 500 megs of swap. And Postfix and SpamAssassin are the
only things running on it. Thanks!

Swap is pretty much useless for anything but programs you need running
but rarely use. You can swap out a *tiny* bit of spamd, but that's
about it if you don't want serious performance problems.

Daryl

From: "James Lay" <jlay (AT) slave-tothe-box (DOT) net>

Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:46:05 -0700
"jdow" <jdow (AT) earthlink (DOT) netwrote:

>From: "James Lay" <jlay (AT) slave-tothe-box (DOT) net>
>
>Hey all!
>
>Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
>have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus
>the SARE rules tank it? am I safe? Thanks all!
>
>Perhaps.
>
>Do not run anything else with a significant memory footprint on the
>system at the same time. Do not use X, of course. Minimize the number
>of children spawned to one.
>
>{^_^} Joanne
>

Thank you Joanne :)

(I used to run SA on a 256 meg 66 MHz Pentium that was also the firewall.
It was erm ahm slow, VERY slow. But it ran. This was in the 2.6.3 days
give or take some.)

{^_-}

Wed, 9 Aug 2006 00:52:58 -0700, "jdow" <jdow (AT) earthlink (DOT) netwrote:

>From: "James Lay" <jlay (AT) slave-tothe-box (DOT) net>
>
>Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:46:05 -0700
>"jdow" <jdow (AT) earthlink (DOT) netwrote:
>
From: "James Lay" <jlay (AT) slave-tothe-box (DOT) net>

Hey all!

Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus
the SARE rules tank it? am I safe? Thanks all!

Perhaps.

Do not run anything else with a significant memory footprint on the
system at the same time. Do not use X, of course. Minimize the number
of children spawned to one.

{^_^} Joanne

>
>Thank you Joanne :)
>
>(I used to run SA on a 256 meg 66 MHz Pentium that was also the firewall.
>It was erm ahm slow, VERY slow. But it ran. This was in the 2.6.3 days
>give or take some.)
>
>{^_-}

The largest factor to take into consideration is how much mail SA will
be dealing with. Running a single child will be limiting, if you are
getting anything more than a few hundred mails per day that hardware
will be insufficient. You will either hit long delays or mail will be
passed through without being scanned.

Just my 2p worth

KR

Nigel

From: "Nigel Frankcom" <nigel (AT) blue-canoe (DOT) net>

Wed, 9 Aug 2006 00:52:58 -0700, "jdow" <jdow (AT) earthlink (DOT) netwrote:

>From: "James Lay" <jlay (AT) slave-tothe-box (DOT) net>
>
>Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:46:05 -0700
>"jdow" <jdow (AT) earthlink (DOT) netwrote:
>
From: "James Lay" <jlay (AT) slave-tothe-box (DOT) net>

Hey all!

Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus
the SARE rules tank it? am I safe? Thanks all!

Perhaps.

Do not run anything else with a significant memory footprint on the
system at the same time. Do not use X, of course. Minimize the number
of children spawned to one.

{^_^} Joanne

>
>Thank you Joanne :)
>
>(I used to run SA on a 256 meg 66 MHz Pentium that was also the firewall.
>It was erm ahm slow, VERY slow. But it ran. This was in the 2.6.3 days
>give or take some.)
>
>{^_-}

The largest factor to take into consideration is how much mail SA will
be dealing with. Running a single child will be limiting, if you are
getting anything more than a few hundred mails per day that hardware
will be insufficient. You will either hit long delays or mail will be
passed through without being scanned.

<<jdow's plugged nickel's worth>>Based on the bad case I ran his
machine should do on the order of 10 to 30 seconds per email depending
on the speed of his processor. At 30 seconds per that gives him the
capacity, with delays to be sure, for 3000 emails per day. When they
come in batched there will be several minutes of delay. But for most
people's needs for a single user 3000 emails is somewhat more than is
to be expected.

{^_-} Joanne, who has a bad habit if running numbers. And I note he
might be able to run two instances to get SME benefit from
paralleling the DNS lookups.

Nigel Frankcom wrote:

The largest factor to take into consideration is how much mail SA will
be dealing with. Running a single child will be limiting, if you are
getting anything more than a few hundred mails per day that hardware
will be insufficient. You will either hit long delays or mail will be
passed through without being scanned.

Just my 2p worth

KR

Nigel

FWIW, one of my personal MXes process a few thousand messages a day, at
SMTP time, with a single child with no problems. Last week it handled
35,000 messages.

Daryl

Wed, 9 Aug 2006 01:10:59 -0700, "jdow" <jdow (AT) earthlink (DOT) netwrote:

>From: "Nigel Frankcom" <nigel (AT) blue-canoe (DOT) net>
>
Wed, 9 Aug 2006 00:52:58 -0700, "jdow" <jdow (AT) earthlink (DOT) netwrote:
>
>>From: "James Lay" <jlay (AT) slave-tothe-box (DOT) net>
>>
Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:46:05 -0700
"jdow" <jdow (AT) earthlink (DOT) netwrote:

From: "James Lay" <jlay (AT) slave-tothe-box (DOT) net>

Hey all!

Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I
have 3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus
the SARE rules tank it? am I safe? Thanks all!

Perhaps.

Do not run anything else with a significant memory footprint on the
system at the same time. Do not use X, of course. Minimize the number
of children spawned to one.

{^_^} Joanne

Thank you Joanne :)
>>
>>(I used to run SA on a 256 meg 66 MHz Pentium that was also the firewall.
>>It was erm ahm slow, VERY slow. But it ran. This was in the 2.6.3 days
>>give or take some.)
>>
>>{^_-}
>
>The largest factor to take into consideration is how much mail SA will
>be dealing with. Running a single child will be limiting, if you are
>getting anything more than a few hundred mails per day that hardware
>will be insufficient. You will either hit long delays or mail will be
>passed through without being scanned.
>
><<jdow's plugged nickel's worth>>Based on the bad case I ran his
>machine should do on the order of 10 to 30 seconds per email depending
>on the speed of his processor. At 30 seconds per that gives him the
>capacity, with delays to be sure, for 3000 emails per day. When they
>come in batched there will be several minutes of delay. But for most
>people's needs for a single user 3000 emails is somewhat more than is
>to be expected.
>
>{^_-} Joanne, who has a bad habit if running numbers. And I note he
might be able to run two instances to get SME benefit from
paralleling the DNS lookups.

Point conceded :-D

From: "Nigel Frankcom" <nigel (AT) blue-canoe (DOT) net>
>{^_-} Joanne, who has a bad habit if running numbers. And I note he
might be able to run two instances to get SME benefit from
paralleling the DNS lookups.

Point conceded :-D

<<jdow>That's DEADLY in political arguments when I bother to take
the time.

{^_-}