- Original Message -
From: "Nigel Horne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] kernel: Out of Memory:Killed process x
(clamd).
> On Tuesday 14 Sep 2004 06:30, Meni Shapiro wrote:
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Fact: We've been running clamd for a week now, scanning 130.000 mails
per week.
With that amount you shouldn't have any problem.
Try 1157851 mail per day (that's yesterday's count on one of my MTAs).
Question: Why do I see 4 clamd processes?
Might be threads implementat
* Trog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > That was not my claim, but the other person's.
>
> I know, I believe I correctly kept the attribution. You merely believed
> it at face value.
Fact: We've been running clamd for a week now, scanning 130.000 mails
per week. It has not died on us, nor is it using hu
On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 15:17, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Trog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Ok, THAT's bad - and should be fixed.
> >
> > If it were true it would be. Please point me at some code in clamd that
> > does that.
>
> That was not my claim, but the other person's.
I know, I believe I
* Trog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Ok, THAT's bad - and should be fixed.
>
> If it were true it would be. Please point me at some code in clamd that
> does that.
That was not my claim, but the other person's.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrum) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charite - Universi
On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 12:27, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:58:41AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > > > Because current clamd implementation is not to "die" on
> > > > memory allocation error, but sleep.
> > >
> > > It doesn't die, it'
* Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:58:41AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > > Because current clamd implementation is not to "die" on
> > > memory allocation error, but sleep.
> >
> > It doesn't die, it's being killed by the kernel.
>
> No - clamd does a malloc and t
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:58:41AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > Because current clamd implementation is not to "die" on
> > memory allocation error, but sleep.
>
> It doesn't die, it's being killed by the kernel.
No - clamd does a malloc and that fails. Then instead of dying (which would
be
* Fajar A. Nugraha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Because softlimit is a hack.
It is not a hack. It is common pratice to run programs using least
privilege and with limited resource to prevent runaway conditions.
> Because current clamd implementation is not to "die" on
> memory allocation error, but sl
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Fajar A. Nugraha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Which brings my earlier suggestion. Is there any way to put a
built-in memory limiter (not external program like softlimit) to
clamd?
Why add code to clamd when a good unix-like solution already exists?
Because softlimit is
On Sep 15, 2004, at 01:48, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
D Walsh wrote:
I sat down in front of a Solaris 9 system, installed clamav as
instructed and yes indeed there appears to be a problem with the
implementation of free(), in 30 mins of sending e-mail from the EICAR
test site memory did climb to
Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
D Walsh wrote:
I sat down in front of a Solaris 9 system, installed clamav as
instructed and yes indeed there appears to be a problem with the
implementation of free(), in 30 mins of sending e-mail from the EICAR
test site memory did climb to 2.87gb and did not clear i
* Fajar A. Nugraha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Which brings my earlier suggestion. Is there any way to put a
> built-in memory limiter (not external program like softlimit) to
> clamd?
Why add code to clamd when a good unix-like solution already exists?
--
Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrum)
D Walsh wrote:
I sat down in front of a Solaris 9 system, installed clamav as
instructed and yes indeed there appears to be a problem with the
implementation of free(), in 30 mins of sending e-mail from the EICAR
test site memory did climb to 2.87gb and did not clear itself.
[snip]
This lead
For the record I just want to say that I think "using excessive memory" is
more correct than "memory leak".
The reason I thought clamd had a memory leak was because I'd run it under
softlimits (set to say 40M) and clamd would end up (after mins,hours or
days) hung at 39xxxM. The logs would show it
On Sep 14, 2004, at 23:38, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
Nigel Horne wrote:
On Tuesday 14 Sep 2004 10:34, D Walsh wrote:
Would you consider the following a sign of a memory leak?
IDname user cpu threads real mem virtual mem
-
--
Nigel Horne wrote:
On Tuesday 14 Sep 2004 10:34, D Walsh wrote:
Would you consider the following a sign of a memory leak?
IDname user cpu threads real mem virtual mem
1899 freshclam cla
Nigel Horne wrote:
Though I probably should rephrase my statements from now, and no longer
use the phrase "memory leak" but "high memory usage" instead.
That is different.
High memory usage != memory leak
Actually, that is my point. Right now I'm not sure whether there IS any
memory leak a
> > Would you call memory usage of 128MB leak?
> > Would you call clamd memory usage of 3GB leak?
> Neither. I would call losing reference to allocated memory a memory
> leak.
Ok, but just two things:
The clam conf is set to limit the amount of memory that should be
scanned. If there is no me
On Tuesday 14 Sep 2004 11:07, Thomas Lamy wrote:
> For quite a while (6 weeks) I collected each and every mail on one of my
> MXes. I checked them "offline" for leaks using a shell wrapper, which
> checked clams memory usage between each feeded mail, but found really
> nothing.
> I'll start tha
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Trog wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 06:30, Meni Shapiro wrote:
>
> > > Clamd works great for lots of people, but some have reported memory
> > > leaks on latest stable (0.75.1),
> > > which could cause your system to be "out of memory".
>
> A few people (out of the thousands w
On Tuesday 14 Sep 2004 11:04, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> Nigel Horne wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday 14 Sep 2004 06:30, Meni Shapiro wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi Fajar,
> >>Thanks for you answer. It's the most usefull i got 'till today.
> >>I will take a look at the tools you suguested...
> >>The leak is from cl
On Tuesday 14 Sep 2004 10:30, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> and since
> valgrind only works
> on Linux
For the record, this is wrong. 1) Valgrind works on FreeBSD.
2) It's only x86, so it doesn't work on all Linux's.
> I can't use it on Solaris/sparc,
This is true.
> Fajar
-Nigel
--
Nigel Hor
On Tuesday 14 Sep 2004 10:34, D Walsh wrote:
> Would you consider the following a sign of a memory leak?
>
> IDname user cpu threads real mem virtual mem
>
>
> 1899 freshclam clamav 0.0
Thomas Lamy wrote:
> From the different posts here I bet there are library issues in BSD, as
> that OS is number one when it comes to leakage complains.
More specifically, it tends to be FreeBSD 5* systems which have the most
complaints. FreeBSD 4* systems have been rock solid with Clam upto ju
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 12:07, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> Trog wrote:
> >
> >If you're scanning multiple 1GB files concurrently, then your going to
> >use 1-2GB of memory.
> >
> That's just it. I put a size limit on my mail system, BEFORE clamd has a
> chance to scan it,
> so I know for a fact that
A few people (out of the thousands who run ClamAV) have reported
"memory
leaks" in stable versions of clamd.
However, none of those people have submitted a report from a memory
debugging tool to show where the leak occurs on their systems,
despite
being asked to by the development team. None of t
Trog wrote:
I know that the amount of memory used should be varied depending on
system activity,
but when clamd uses 1 or 2 GB memory when it does nothing (well, it WAS
very busy
earlier, but it's doing nothing now) is _weird_
If you're scanning multiple 1GB files concurrently, then your goi
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 11:04, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> >
> >That is not evidence of a memory leak. It is evidence of as lot of memory
> >being used at runtime which is a very different thing.
> >
> >
> >
> BTW, what IS the evidence of memory leak?
There is no substantiated evidence at this point
Nigel Horne wrote:
On Tuesday 14 Sep 2004 06:30, Meni Shapiro wrote:
Hi Fajar,
Thanks for you answer. It's the most usefull i got 'till today.
I will take a look at the tools you suguested...
The leak is from clamd...i checked 'top' and saw how it swallows all
avialble memory until it is killed
Jason Haar wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 08:38:57AM +0100, Trog wrote:
A few people (out of the thousands who run ClamAV) have reported "memory
leaks" in stable versions of clamd.
However, none of those people have submitted a report from a memory
debugging tool to show where the leak occurs on
On Sep 14, 2004, at 03:38, Trog wrote:
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 06:30, Meni Shapiro wrote:
Clamd works great for lots of people, but some have reported memory
leaks on latest stable (0.75.1),
which could cause your system to be "out of memory".
A few people (out of the thousands who run ClamAV) have r
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 09:42, Jason Haar wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 08:38:57AM +0100, Trog wrote:
> > A few people (out of the thousands who run ClamAV) have reported "memory
> > leaks" in stable versions of clamd.
> >
> > However, none of those people have submitted a report from a memory
>
Trog wrote:
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 06:30, Meni Shapiro wrote:
Clamd works great for lots of people, but some have reported memory
leaks on latest stable (0.75.1),
which could cause your system to be "out of memory".
A few people (out of the thousands who run ClamAV) have reported "memory
On Tuesday 14 Sep 2004 06:30, Meni Shapiro wrote:
> Hi Fajar,
> Thanks for you answer. It's the most usefull i got 'till today.
> I will take a look at the tools you suguested...
> The leak is from clamd...i checked 'top' and saw how it swallows all
> avialble memory until it is killed by kernel.
On Tuesday 14 Sep 2004 04:36, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> If you have another primary scanner (clamd is your backup), then you
> should stick to it for now.
> Clamd works great for lots of people, but some have reported memory
> leaks on latest stable (0.75.1),
> which could cause your system to b
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 08:38:57AM +0100, Trog wrote:
> A few people (out of the thousands who run ClamAV) have reported "memory
> leaks" in stable versions of clamd.
>
> However, none of those people have submitted a report from a memory
> debugging tool to show where the leak occurs on their sy
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 06:30, Meni Shapiro wrote:
> > Clamd works great for lots of people, but some have reported memory
> > leaks on latest stable (0.75.1),
> > which could cause your system to be "out of memory".
A few people (out of the thousands who run ClamAV) have reported "memory
leaks" i
Hi Fajar,
Thanks for you answer. It's the most usefull i got 'till today.
I will take a look at the tools you suguested...
The leak is from clamd...i checked 'top' and saw how it swallows all
avialble memory until it is killed by kernel.
It is indeed the primary AV filter, and i thought of upgradi
Nigel Horne wrote:
On Friday 10 Sep 2004 19:01, Meni Shapiro wrote:
hi guys,
I got clamd running on a rh9 machine with mimedefang & sendmail 8.12.8 (yes
i know...should upgrade to 8.13.x )
[snip]
"Sep 10 19:16:46 kernel: Out of Memory: Killed process x (clamd)."
[snip]
How
On Friday 10 Sep 2004 19:01, Meni Shapiro wrote:
> hi guys,
> I got clamd running on a rh9 machine with mimedefang & sendmail 8.12.8 (yes
> i know...should upgrade to 8.13.x )
> i got a problem that sometimes apears every 30 minutes!! and sometimes after
> few days!!(up to 2 weeks!)
> i get thi
hi guys,
I got clamd running on a rh9 machine with mimedefang & sendmail 8.12.8 (yes
i know...should upgrade to 8.13.x )
i got a problem that sometimes apears every 30 minutes!! and sometimes after
few days!!(up to 2 weeks!)
i get this line in /var/log/messages:
"Sep 10 19:16:46 kernel: Ou
42 matches
Mail list logo
