What exactly should happen when -max-children is reached?
We run spamd with -m 30 and are starting to see some issues when we hit
that number. In the log files I can see that it is not forking a new
child like it is supposed to (Dec 19 04:16:22 spamav2 spamd[5159]: hit
max-children limit (30): wa
> > In your sendmail.cf you'll want to tune:
> >
> > QueueLA
> > RefuseLA
> > MaxDaemonChildren
> > ConnectionRateThrottle
>
This is all really interesting to me as we have had mail wars on occassion
on our large servers. Some of them are self-inflicted eg some system process
has problems, sends
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> At 08:38 18/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
>
> >I've seen this two or three times now, and I'm not sure what to make of
> >it.
> >
> >Outward appearance is that we get hit with a ton of spam, or perhaps that
> >an RBL goes out. I wind up with many copie
At 18:36 22/06/03 -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
Simon Byrnand said:
> > So quickly that it makes me suspicious as to what was REALLY
> >wrong. Maybe something more than just load, or RBL problems. Maybe a
> >locking problem.
>
> Nope, this is a problem with stock installs of sendmail/procmail and/o
Simon Byrnand said:
> > So quickly that it makes me suspicious as to what was REALLY
> >wrong. Maybe something more than just load, or RBL problems. Maybe a
> >locking problem.
>
> Nope, this is a problem with stock installs of sendmail/procmail and/or a
> lack of memory. How much memory does
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> At 20:54 22/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
>
>
> >On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> >
> > > At 08:38 18/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
> > >
> > > >I've seen this two or three times now, and I'm not sure what to make of
> > > >it.
> > > >
> >
At 20:54 22/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> At 08:38 18/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
>
> >I've seen this two or three times now, and I'm not sure what to make of
> >it.
> >
> >Outward appearance is that we get hit with a ton of spam, or perhaps that
>
#!/bin/sh
loadavg=`sed 's/\..*//g' /proc/loadavg`
if [ "$loadavg" -gt 14 ]; then
/usr/bin/logger -i -p mail.warn -t `basename $0` WARNING:
Returning temporary failure due to load average of $loadavg
exit 75
fi
procmail=`ps -Af | grep procmail | grep -v grep | wc -l`
if [ "$procm
At 08:38 18/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
I've seen this two or three times now, and I'm not sure what to make of
it.
Outward appearance is that we get hit with a ton of spam, or perhaps that
an RBL goes out. I wind up with many copies of spamd running, many more
than the -m parameter should allo
- Original Message -
From: "Jack Gostl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SpamAssassin listserve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:38 AM
Subject: [SAtalk] Max children
>
> I've seen this two or three times now, and I'm not sure
> > based on what you wrote, I added a "-m 2" option to my call of spamd, to
> > limit the number of children to 2.
> > This should solve at least my problem, since the default obviously was
> > "unlimited". If that's wrong, could one of the developers or someone with
> > more insight set us strai
> based on what you wrote, I added a "-m 2" option to my call of spamd, to
> limit the number of children to 2.
> This should solve at least my problem, since the default obviously was
> "unlimited". If that's wrong, could one of the developers or someone with
> more insight set us straight?
As a
> Jack,
>
> based on what you wrote, I added a "-m 2" option to my call of spamd, to
> limit the number of children to 2.
> This should solve at least my problem, since the default obviously was
> "unlimited". If that's wrong, could one of the developers or someone with
> more insight set us str
I think its wrong. I'm thinking of removing the "-m". But I'm guessing.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Ralf Guenthner wrote:
> Jack,
>
> based on what you wrote, I added a "-m 2" option to my call of spamd, to
> limit the number of children to 2.
> This should solve at least my problem, since the default
Jack,
based on what you wrote, I added a "-m 2" option to my call of spamd, to
limit the number of children to 2.
This should solve at least my problem, since the default obviously was
"unlimited". If that's wrong, could one of the developers or someone with
more insight set us straight?
Thanks
R
> To: "SpamAssassin listserve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 2:38 PM
> Subject: [SAtalk] Max children
>
>
> >
> > I've seen this two or three times now, and I'm not sure what to make of
> > it.
> >
> > Ou
s, it'd be great.
Cheers
Ralf G.
- Original Message -
From: "Jack Gostl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SpamAssassin listserve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 2:38 PM
Subject: [SAtalk] Max children
>
> I've seen this two
I've seen this two or three times now, and I'm not sure what to make of
it.
Outward appearance is that we get hit with a ton of spam, or perhaps that
an RBL goes out. I wind up with many copies of spamd running, many more
than the -m parameter should allow. (And forget about procmail and
sendmail
18 matches
Mail list logo
