Re: Pernicious problem with vfork / qmail / qmail-scanner (RESOLVED)

Happen to catch this, this morning... Good dig on this.. Tcpserver *defaults* to a maximum of 40 simultaneous connections, so this could very well be where your problem is.. Sorry, should have thought of this earlier. You can raise this limit with the -c n (n=number) option.. Please see

Re: Pernicious problem with vfork / qmail / qmail-scanner (RESOLVED)

Hi Justin, --On Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:37:13 AM -0500 "Justin Baugh, KSC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, after much testing & debugging: * The problem only happens with tcpserver * The problem is not replicable in any way under 5.2.1R * The problem happens with any service/user with tcpserve

Re: Pernicious problem with vfork / qmail / qmail-scanner

Hi KSC, --On Thursday, March 11, 2004 10:12:25 PM -0500 "Justin Baugh, KSC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Using truss, I see that the processes are just sitting there doing vfork/nanosleep over and over and over, in a "Resource temporarily unavailable" loop. Once the processes get into this state,

Re: Pernicious problem with vfork / qmail / qmail-scanner

Hi KSC, --On Thursday, March 11, 2004 11:10:30 PM -0500 "Justin Baugh, KSC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This machine has 2 gigabytes of RAM and 4 gigabytes of swap. I would have to run several hundred simultaneous processes to even get close to that limit. Even when the problem is occuring I have

Re: Pernicious problem with vfork / qmail / qmail-scanner

This error means means you`ve run out of memory (RAM + swap). Add RAM or swap, or lower your concurrencies or stop unneeded processes. Have you checked your memory? Qmail-scanner is *very* resource intensive as it is a huge perl program, which then calls KAV, and I have a feeling this is where the

Re: Pernicious problem with vfork / qmail / qmail-scanner

Hi KSC, On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:12:25 -0500 UTC (3/11/04, 9:12 PM -0600 UTC my time), Justin Baugh, KSC wrote: K> Hello list, K> I am having a hell of a time with qmail/qmail-scanner, and I am hoping K> someone on the list can help me. Normally this setup has worked K> completely fine on any