On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 06:47:15PM -0600, dman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 05:11:19PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> | On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 01:00:12PM -0500, Craig Hughes wrote:
> | > On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 04:27, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
> | > > One thing to beware of is that Perl will *nev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03 Apr 2002, Craig Hughes told this:
> On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 16:31, Sean Rima wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Duncan Findlay yowled:
>>
>> > Are you using a Pentium 100 with 40 MB RAM?
>>
>> No a P90 with 32mb :)
>
> Would that be one-downsman
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Duncan Findlay told this:
>> >> It is strange, I use fetchmail with exim and have never suffered this
>> >> problem. During some of my big runs (400+ emails) spamd works fine. I
>> >> had the problem but have noticed that as soon
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 16:31, Sean Rima wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Duncan Findlay yowled:
>
> > Are you using a Pentium 100 with 40 MB RAM?
>
> No a P90 with 32mb :)
Would that be one-downsmanship?
C
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTE
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:31:32AM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Duncan Findlay yowled:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 12:04:41PM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> On 02 Ap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Duncan Findlay yowled:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 12:04:41PM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 02 Apr 2002, Craig Hughes spake thusly:
>>
>> > On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 17:11, Duncan
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 12:04:41PM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02 Apr 2002, Craig Hughes spake thusly:
>
> > On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 17:11, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> >> The only problems come when you get "spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-
> >>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] told this:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 05:11:19PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
>| On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 01:00:12PM -0500, Craig Hughes wrote:
>| > On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 04:27, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
>| > > One t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02 Apr 2002, Craig Hughes spake thusly:
> On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 17:11, Duncan Findlay wrote:
>> The only problems come when you get "spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-
>> spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-
>
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 05:11:19PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
| On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 01:00:12PM -0500, Craig Hughes wrote:
| > On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 04:27, Matt Sergeant wrote:
| > > One thing to beware of is that Perl will *never* free memory back to the
| > > OS. Ever.
| >
| > That shoul
On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 17:11, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> The only problems come when you get "spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-
> spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-
> spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-crash-and-burn" as
> soon as fetchmail k
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 01:00:12PM -0500, Craig Hughes wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 04:27, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > AHA Lists wrote:
> > > I am running spamd on my redhat 6 box and spamd is taking up 5.3% memory.
> > > IS this normal?
> > >
> > > root 3401 0.0 5.3 7848 6792 ?S
On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 04:27, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> AHA Lists wrote:
> > I am running spamd on my redhat 6 box and spamd is taking up 5.3% memory.
> > IS this normal?
> >
> > root 3401 0.0 5.3 7848 6792 ?S08:44 0:00 perl
> > /usr/bin/spamd -d -c -a
> >
>
> This is Perl. It
AHA Lists wrote:
> I am running spamd on my redhat 6 box and spamd is taking up 5.3% memory.
> IS this normal?
>
> root 3401 0.0 5.3 7848 6792 ?S08:44 0:00 perl
> /usr/bin/spamd -d -c -a
>
This is Perl. It trades memory for speed. Yes, that's perfectly normal.
One thing t
root 3002 0.0 0.5 10364 8924 ?SMar19 0:04
/usr/bin/perl -w /usr/bin/spamd -D -d -L -c -a -F0
It's allocated 10364k on my machine, of which after 10 days uptime 8924
is resident in core, being around 0.5% of my 1.5GB -- this seems to be
about normal. What's taking up memory i
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 09:06:29AM -0600, AHA Lists wrote:
| My % = 6.8 megs. That just seems really high while sitting there doing
| nothing but waiting.
If you rewrite it in C, then perhaps (depends on the source of memory
usage and your coding skills) it would use less memory. I think much
o
>
>
> My % = 6.8 megs. That just seems really high while sitting there doing
> nothing but waiting.
>
>
>
I see that you are using AWL. How large is your db? This may be what is
using alot of your RAM. My AWL db is about 16MB.
---
Ed.
___
Spamass
My % = 6.8 megs. That just seems really high while sitting there doing
nothing but waiting.
on 3/29/02 8:50 AM, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Percentage is relative but on my box spamd is currently using 8.8MB of RAM.
> Got this from top.
>
>
>>
>>
>> I am runn
Percentage is relative but on my box spamd is currently using 8.8MB of RAM.
Got this from top.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of AHA
> Lists
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 9:43 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Su
I am running spamd on my redhat 6 box and spamd is taking up 5.3% memory.
IS this normal?
root 3401 0.0 5.3 7848 6792 ?S08:44 0:00 perl
/usr/bin/spamd -d -c -a
Thanks.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https:/
20 matches
Mail list logo