From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 19 21:45:57 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8679516DF6B for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:45:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@stringsutils.com) Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (p65-147.acedsl.com [66.114.65.147]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39D8513C442 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:45:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@stringsutils.com) Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (localhost.natserv.net [127.0.0.1]) by zoraida.natserv.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D14C2E9 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:45:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by zoraida.natserv.net (Postfix, from userid 58) id F3FE8C2E3; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:45:55 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on zoraida.natserv.net X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=4.3 required=4.0 tests=RCVD_IN_FIVETENSRC, RCVD_IN_NOMOREFUNN,SPF_FAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Report: * 1.3 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail) * [SPF failed: Please see http://www.openspf.org/why.html?sender=lists%40stringsutils.com&ip=71.249.233.130&receiver=zoraida.natserv.net] * 1.0 RCVD_IN_FIVETENSRC RBL: Received via a relay in Five Ten block list * [71.249.233.130 listed in blackholes.five-ten-sg.com] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_NOMOREFUNN RBL: Received via a relay in No More Funn block * list * [71.249.233.130 listed in no-more-funn.moensted.dk] Received: from 35st.simplicato.com (static-71-249-233-130.nycmny.east.verizon.net [71.249.233.130]) by zoraida.natserv.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153A7C163; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:45:53 -0500 (EST) References: <200702172201.l1HM1BnR009915@lava.sentex.ca> <200702192021.l1JKLAkQ021489@lava.sentex.ca> Message-ID: X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/ From: Francisco Reyes To: Mike Tancsa Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:45:51 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Prev-Subject: Re: Clamav replacement for FreeBSD+postfix? X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: *****SPAM***** Re: Clamav replacement for FreeBSD+postfix? X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:45:57 -0000 Mike Tancsa writes: > Why do you need so much per server to do spam/virus scanning ? At several point in times (ie different clamav versions) clamav was using more than 512MB and causing all kinds of problems because of FreeBSD's default 512MB limit. We bumped the per program limit to 1.5MB and so far clamav has not exceeded that. > Cores per package: 2 > real memory = 3756916736 (3582 MB) > avail memory = 3677523968 (3507 MB) > ACPI APIC Table: > > >>We get our machines installed with FreeBSD and the vendor has been >>putting PAE on machines with 4GB, but I am wondering if it is even needed. > > I have never used (nor trusted) PAE. May try that for the next machine. I don't think I have ever seen a good comment on PAE, although haven't tried too hard either. If clamav had not crashed so often until we increased the max ram per program to 1.5GB, we probably would have gone with 2GB machines. I don't think it was that much price difference so rather have the extra and not use it than to have too little.