[volunteers] System was near RAM exhaustion

[Edward Cherlin]

Don, in the message you replied to, Rick explained clearly that what
we need is not more hardware. We do not need more RAM for spamd to
fill up to no purpose. We do not need a separate spamd machine.

What we need is the long-promised, never-finished "new" (well,
replacement, anyway) server using _packaged_ software that can be kept
up to date, with current "(small, fast, C-based) Exim4 rulesets". Then
we will not be depending on an old, creaky, unmaintainable set of
software that is inadequate to our present needs.

Andrew, how is that going?

Rick _tries_, goodness knows. It surprises me somewhat that he doesn't
get completely fed up with people who don't know how to listen or
cannot comprehend simple, clear English. I have never seen him lose
it. The worst anybody has been able to do is to turn him briefly into
a curmudgeon.

Thanks, Rick.

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Don Marti<dmarti at zgp.org> wrote:
> begin Rick Moen quotation of Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 02:49:24PM -0700:
>
>> Downthread of my September 2007 post, responding to Mark Weisler:
>>
>>   > Do we need more memory for the old server?  [Yeah, yeah, I was a
>>   > manager...  ;.]
>>
>>   No, not really.
>>
>>   My own server gets by extremely reliably with _half_ as much RAM as the
>>   legacy www.svlug.org server has, and the MTA / antispam setup is
>>   remarkably similar, except that the software in question consists of
>>   more-mature versions, with much, much more emphasis on intercepting spam
>>   in the front-end of Exim4, the C-based, fast, small rulesets, before
>>   handing off mail streams that survive those tests to (slow, bloated)
>>   SpamAssassin (spamd).  _And_ those more-mature software versions aren't
>>   wacked-out 2002-era betaware cobbled together by Marc.
>
> I haven't seen this idea brought up before: what
> about adding a dedicated spamd machine?  It seems like
> there is available hardware -- if there's something
> that will accept lots of RAM, well, lists.svlug.org
> seems to have two interfaces...
>
> 00:0e.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557 [Ethernet Pro 100] (rev 08)
> 00:0f.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557 [Ethernet Pro 100] (rev 08)
>
> ...but one just isn't configured.  So make it a
> private interface for connecting to the spamd box.
>
> Is there space for another system on the rack?
>
> --
> Don Marti                                 +1 510-332-1587 mobile
> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
> dmarti at zgp.org
> See you at OpenSource World: August 11-13, 2009 in San Francisco
>
> _______________________________________________
> volunteers mailing list
> volunteers at lists.svlug.org
> http://lists.svlug.org/lists/listinfo/volunteers
>



-- 
Silent Thunder (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) is my name
And Children are my nation.
The Cosmos is my dwelling place, The Truth my destination.
http://earthtreasury.org/worknet (Edward Mokurai Cherlin)