Thank you,
Cody Baker 330.934.0659 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Clive Eisen wrote:
Bu I see no evidence that clamd leaks - doeas anyone else?
Cody Baker wrote:
If clamd was hitting the softlimits then yes, clamd might affected but the system as a whole would not be. Where as if it was just run without supervision then clamd's leaks would continue to grow without bound until blammo, the system crashes, much as it is in this case.
Cody Baker 330.934.0659 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jonathan Tai wrote:
On Sun, 2004-05-09 at 15:12, Clive Eisen wrote:
Jason Haar wrote:
Do you run clamd under daemontools? (as a supervise script). If so, stop it.
Run it as a rc-script instead. I have found and heard of so many problems
with memory leaks/etc that make clamd under daemontools a very bad idea.
Why do you think that an rc script will be different to daemontools?
If there is an fd problem there is an fd problem - how clamd is started won't change that.
If you start clamd under daemontools with softlimits, it would be
affected. - Jon
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software
Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver higher performing products faster, at low TCO.
http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3
_______________________________________________
Qmail-scanner-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qmail-scanner-general
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software
Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver higher performing products faster, at low TCO.
http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3
_______________________________________________
Qmail-scanner-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qmail-scanner-general
