Dccifd vs dccproc (Was RE: false positives)

Vernon Schryver vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com
Thu Oct 20 15:42:24 UTC 2005


> From: "Ugo Bellavance" 

> long time if there was a clear-cut advantage to run dccifd instead of
> dccproc on a mail server.  In my case, MailScanner calls SpamAssassin,
> which in turn calls DCC.  I usually use DCCifd on the servers I
> maintain, but I haven't done any real performance tests.  I know that a
> daemon like DCCifd is usually faster than a single process because it is
> always in memory, but I've been told that since dccproc is called very
> often, the process of paging in/out shouldn't be very slow.  Comments?

dccproc involves a fork() and exec() and then sending the message through
a pipe to the child process and receiving the answer.
dccifd need only send the message over UNIX domain socket to a daemon
and receiving the answer.

Dccproc must open, validate, and mmap() the whiteclnt and whiteclnt.dccw
files, while dccifd caches open files and mmap() regions.
Dccproc also creates creates a socket to talk to the DCC server while
dccifd caches open sockets.

I must admit that I've been too lazy to do obvious tests. 


Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com



More information about the DCC mailing list

Contact vjs@rhyolite.com by mail or use the form.