> Hi SAs
>
> I'm installing SA under a Soekris, it has only 256 MB of ram, because it boots
> using a flash there is not swap memory so I have a problem with memory.
>
> Does anyone has any configuration, recomendation to optimize SA for lowmemory
> machines? Maybe turnning off some plugins?
>
>
No problem, I just want to conserve as much memory space as possible so as to
avaiod Disk Swapping.
-Grant
- Original Message -
From: sokka
To: Matt Kettler
Cc: Grant Peel ; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: spamd memory
Grant,
Let us know what is your problem with spamd?
regards
On Nov 20, 2007 8:36 PM, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Grant Peel wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > What might one do to lessen the memory load for each of the spamd
> > processes?
>
> 1) Reduce the number of rules you are runni
Grant Peel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> What might one do to lessen the memory load for each of the spamd
> processes?
1) Reduce the number of rules you are running. Particularly watch out
for absurd rulesets like sa-blacklist.
2) disable plugins, starting with ones you don't use.
Hi all,
What might one do to lessen the memory load for each of the spamd processes?
-Grant
oncerned?
erm.. Read those numbers cloesly.. 1.125 gigs of cache...
Ideally your physical memory usage should always be 100% (ie: memfree = 0).
That which isn't being used by programs should be used as disk cache until
a process needs more ram in which case the disk cache shrinks.
Instea
Hi,
I'm running
Spamassassin 3.0.4 on a Dell Poweredge 750 with 2.8 Ghx CPU and 2 Gb of RAM. I
have configured it with amavisd-new, clamd, dccifd, razor and pyzor. We're
handling approximately 225 domains w/ app. 5000-6000 users.
Everything is
running great w/ the exception that the memo
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Bikrant Neupane wrote:
> I am planning to fallback to 3.0.2 version. Can you please let me know if
> 3.0.2 code also has same problem or any other issues.
I had the same problem with 3.0.2. I had to turn off Bayes and AWL, and
have yet to turn them back on. I reported this prob
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:02:45AM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
> > body_parts can never contain the current node nor parent nodes, so the patch
> > doesn't actually do anything.
>
> How is that asserted? "Deep recursion" would make it sound like it
> does indeed contain one of those -- although bu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> body_parts can never contain the current node nor parent nodes, so the patch
> doesn't actually do anything.
How is that asserted? "Deep recursion" would make it sound like it
does indeed contain one of those -- although bu
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:18:03AM +0545, Bikrant Neupane wrote:
> > > Deep recursion on subroutine "Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish"
> > > at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
> > > line 659
> >
> > could you try this patch? if it doesn't work, I sug
On Thursday 05 May 2005 11:52, Justin Mason wrote:
> Bikrant Neupane writes:
> > from maillog
> > Deep recursion on subroutine "Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish"
> > at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
> > line 659
>
> could you try this patch? if it
From: "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Loren Wilton writes:
> > > from maillog
> > > Deep recursion on subroutine
"Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish"
> > > at
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
> >
Justin Mason wrote:
[...]
on 3.1.0 or 3.0.2?
3.0.2
[...]
Are you limiting the size of messages being passed to spamd? Scanning
The limit is 200k.
as far as I know, there is not a remotely-exploitable bug here. Obviously
these would be more serious and we encourage those to be reported on the
bugz
I doubt that this is a problem now, but it might
> > be worth trying as a precautionary measure.
>
> I am absulotely CERTAIN that memory leakage is a huge problem at the
> moment. Using SpamAssassin 3.0.2 for threee month I witnessed no
> problems at all, but on two consecu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Loren Wilton writes:
> > from maillog
> > Deep recursion on subroutine "Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish"
> > at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
> > line 659
>
> As far as I know (which may be wrong) th
r 10 spamd processes,
this "fix" for memory usage will not help us. The only thing that has
worked for us is to limit the number of spammy messages reaching SA, and
killing off the spamd processes after a few scans.
Steve
Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> from maillog
> Deep recursion on subroutine "Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish"
> at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
> line 659
As far as I know (which may be wrong) the deep recursion thing isn't related
to either bayes or awl expiry. I seem to re
that memory leakage is a huge problem at the
moment. Using SpamAssassin 3.0.2 for threee month I witnessed no
problems at all, but on two consecutive days memory-usage went through
the roof and killed my server. There is no AWL and even with Bayes
disabled some spamd-processses reached up to
On Wed, 4 May 2005, Justin Mason wrote:
> From: Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 15:53:13 -0700
> Subject: Re: memory-usage going BOOM
>
> jdow writes:
> > Fr
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 07:05:17PM +0200, Patrick von der Hagen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been using SpamAssassin 3.0.2 for quite some time (about three
> month) on my mailservers and so far I didn't notice any problems. Load
> and message-throughput have been quite constant.
>
> However, yesterd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
yes, I think this definitely should be on the bugzilla ;)
- --j.
Bikrant Neupane writes:
> On Thursday 05 May 2005 11:52, Justin Mason wrote:
> > Bikrant Neupane writes:
> > > from maillog
> > > Deep recursion on subroutine "Mail::SpamAssassin::Mess
On Thursday 05 May 2005 11:52, Justin Mason wrote:
> Bikrant Neupane writes:
> > from maillog
> > Deep recursion on subroutine "Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish"
> > at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
> > line 659
>
> could you try this patch? if it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bikrant Neupane writes:
> from maillog
> Deep recursion on subroutine "Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish"
> at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
> line 659
could you try this patch? if it doesn't work,
> > on another machine (users run spamc -d sa.machine.com)
> >
> > This might be "A GOOD TIME" for someone to create a small exposition
> > regarding spamassassin memory usage. I note that it seems to hover
> > around 56 megabyte to 65 megabyte range even when
ght be "A GOOD TIME" for someone to create a small exposition
> > regarding spamassassin memory usage. I note that it seems to hover
> > around 56 megabyte to 65 megabyte range even when freshly spawned. I
> > do not run AWL. I have about 5 megabytes of Bayes data. (I train
&g
rs run spamc -d sa.machine.com)
>
> This might be "A GOOD TIME" for someone to create a small exposition
> regarding spamassassin memory usage. I note that it seems to hover
> around 56 megabyte to 65 megabyte range even when freshly spawned. I
> do not run AWL. I have abou
create a small exposition
regarding spamassassin memory usage. I note that it seems to hover
around 56 megabyte to 65 megabyte range even when freshly spawned. I
do not run AWL. I have about 5 megabytes of Bayes data. (I train
lightly of late and only when something new turns up.) I am running
a fair
I've been using SpamAssassin 3.0.2 for quite some time (about three
month) on my mailservers and so far I didn't notice any problems. Load
and message-throughput have been quite constant.
However, yesterday one of my servers went BANG, due to lack of memory.
First I suspected Bind9, but when the me
I have, and I did the same as you along with dropping in another gig of ram.
Steve
Patrick von der Hagen wrote:
Hi all,
I've been using SpamAssassin 3.0.2 for quite some time (about three
month) on my mailservers and so far I didn't notice any problems. Load
and message-throughput have been quite c
Hi all,
I've been using SpamAssassin 3.0.2 for quite some time (about three
month) on my mailservers and so far I didn't notice any problems. Load
and message-throughput have been quite constant.
However, yesterday one of my servers went BANG, due to lack of memory.
First I suspected Bind9, but whe
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 01:26, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> Bikrant Neupane wrote:
> > I shifted to Spamassin 3.0.3 on FreeBSD 5.3 yesterday with dcc enabled.
> > Hardware is Xeon (hyper threading) SC1420 with 1536 MB RAM.
> >
> > I am using following options to start spamd
> > -d -i $O1 -m40
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 01:26, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> Bikrant Neupane wrote:
> > I shifted to Spamassin 3.0.3 on FreeBSD 5.3 yesterday with dcc enabled.
> > Hardware is Xeon (hyper threading) SC1420 with 1536 MB RAM.
> >
> > I am using following options to start spamd
> > -d -i $O1 -m40
Bikrant Neupane wrote:
I shifted to Spamassin 3.0.3 on FreeBSD 5.3 yesterday with dcc enabled.
Hardware is Xeon (hyper threading) SC1420 with 1536 MB RAM.
I am using following options to start spamd
-d -i $O1 -m40 -u smtpd
more debug::
Seems all children are busy!! Do i have to increase max c
I shifted to Spamassin 3.0.3 on FreeBSD 5.3 yesterday with dcc enabled.
Hardware is Xeon (hyper threading) SC1420 with 1536 MB RAM.
I am using following options to start spamd
-d -i $O1 -m40 -u smtpd
spamd process use up all the RAM + another 1GB swap within just 10-20 Mins. It
is re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler writes:
> At 07:24 AM 2/3/2005, Sander Holthaus - Orange XL wrote:
> >I've noticed that my current memory consumption of spamd (3.x), when using a
> >number of custom rule-sets such as SARE, is relatively high (~50MB according
> >to ps).
At 07:24 AM 2/3/2005, Sander Holthaus - Orange XL wrote:
I've noticed that my current memory consumption of spamd (3.x), when using a
number of custom rule-sets such as SARE, is relatively high (~50MB according
to ps). When running with a large number of children, this would consume
quite a large p
I've noticed that my current memory consumption of spamd (3.x), when using a
number of custom rule-sets such as SARE, is relatively high (~50MB according
to ps). When running with a large number of children, this would consume
quite a large portion of memory.
Or am I wrong here, and is a portion of
gt; > a massive AWL file or a bug in DB_File on solaris...
> >
> > Thanks, I've now tried that. Unfortunately, memory usage still seems to
> > increase just as much as before :-(.
> >
> > (The AWL data files are approximately 60Mb, 30Mb and 10Mb on the three
&g
e now tried that. Unfortunately, memory usage still seems to
> increase just as much as before :-(.
>
> (The AWL data files are approximately 60Mb, 30Mb and 10Mb on the three
> machines.)
>
> I've allowed one machine to keep spamassassin running until 4.5gb of
> memory is
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 04:51:27PM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
> try turning off AWL -- if the usage goes down, it's either
> a massive AWL file or a bug in DB_File on solaris...
Thanks, I've now tried that. Unfortunately, memory usage still seems to
increase just as much as befor
; I have three Sun Fire servers running Solaris 9 and SpamAssassin 3.0.1.
> > > SpamAssassin memory usage seems grow a lot. The machines have 2Gb RAM
> > > each, and I have an hourly cron job that restarts SpamAssassin if more
> > > than 1.5Gb memory is used (if the machine s
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 10:28:28PM +, Matthew Newton wrote:
> The only "external" stuff I'm using is SURBL. Auto whitelists is
> turned on, too. Bayesian is off, as are razor/pyzor/dcc. I want
> to turn on some of these extra services sometime (looking at the
> possibility of running a DCC serv
Hello
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 12:42:02PM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
> > I have three Sun Fire servers running Solaris 9 and SpamAssassin 3.0.1.
> > SpamAssassin memory usage seems grow a lot. The machines have 2Gb RAM
> > each, and I have an hourly cron job that restarts Sp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Newton writes:
> I have three Sun Fire servers running Solaris 9 and SpamAssassin 3.0.1.
> SpamAssassin memory usage seems grow a lot. The machines have 2Gb RAM
> each, and I have an hourly cron job that restarts SpamAssassin if mo
Hi!
I have three Sun Fire servers running Solaris 9 and SpamAssassin 3.0.1.
SpamAssassin memory usage seems grow a lot. The machines have 2Gb RAM
each, and I have an hourly cron job that restarts SpamAssassin if more
than 1.5Gb memory is used (if the machine starts swapping, performance
goes
On Nov 17, 2004, at 11:07 AM, Michael W Cocke wrote:
Is this normal? I would have expected them to be using the same
amount of memory, unless there's a leak somewhere.
Try not to confuse memory usage with memory leak. It is a very common
trap.
Vivek Khera, Ph.D.
+1-301-869-4449
Michael W Cocke wrote:
Thanks!
Mike-
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:19:27 -0800, you wrote:
yep, it's normal; big/complex messages result in bigger allocations,
and those allocs don't get returned to the OS until the process
exits.
sure, but the freed space should be reused for new allocations.
So
>- --j.
>
>Michael W Cocke writes:
>> This is off topic and I apologize, but I really couldn't think of a
>> better place to ask. I'm using Postfix 2.1.5/Amavisd 2.1.2/SA 3.01,
>> and I just noticed something odd. Looking at top, the 5 copies of
>> am
't think of a
> better place to ask. I'm using Postfix 2.1.5/Amavisd 2.1.2/SA 3.01,
> and I just noticed something odd. Looking at top, the 5 copies of
> amavisd (I pre-spawn 4) have different memory usage numbers, with the
> oldest amavis using the most memory, and decreasing down
This is off topic and I apologize, but I really couldn't think of a
better place to ask. I'm using Postfix 2.1.5/Amavisd 2.1.2/SA 3.01,
and I just noticed something odd. Looking at top, the 5 copies of
amavisd (I pre-spawn 4) have different memory usage numbers, with the
oldest amavis
the child perl processes as displayed by
> "ps ux" continually increase their memory usage?
>
> I am using the default rule set only. I reduced the number of
> children from 5 (default apparently) to 3 because each child process
> requires 23.5 MB of memory immediately af
Hello,
I recently installed version 3.0.1 - here are my particulars:
qmail-scanner 1.24
FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE i386
spamd invoked with: -H -c -d -m 3 -r
My question is this: why do the child perl processes as displayed by
"ps ux" continually increase their memory usage?
I am using the de
At 03:51 PM 11/1/2004, Scott Palmer wrote:
Is there a reason why the memory usage jumped with 3.0.x? I have two
servers running it and I am thinking I might have to upgrade the RAM
because of it.
One thing that springs to mind is the AWL is on by default, unlike 2.6x..
if you don't want it
Is there a reason why the memory usage jumped with 3.0.x? I have two
servers running it and I am thinking I might have to upgrade the RAM
because of it.
Is there anything that can be done to reduce the usage. I thought that
perhaps it was because of Bayes being in SQL. But, one server has it in
When the memory usage spikes up on a spamd child, it does so on a single
message; from 36K or so up to 250M. That one message shows up in my
logs taking a _long_ time:
Oct 4 18:46:06 devilrock spamd[1800]: identified spam (12.8/5.0) for :500
in 165.3 seconds, 1490 bytes.
Most of the
irst 50KB of
a message. Definitely helps keep memory usage under control, and doesn't
seem to hurt effectiveness at all.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Brodbeck writes:
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:00:51 -0700, Potato Chip wrote
> > It's happened to me about 3 times, where an email will be sent to my
> > server that specifically causes the problem. Killing the spamd process
> > causes the sending M
Morris Jones wrote:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, David Brodbeck wrote:
I've seen this problem. I avoid it by bypassing SpamAssassin for all mail
larger than 1 megabyte. Very little spam is this large, since it'd be
inefficient to send.
I'm already bypassing it for anything over 256000 bytes.
Mojo
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, David Brodbeck wrote:
> I've seen this problem. I avoid it by bypassing SpamAssassin for all mail
> larger than 1 megabyte. Very little spam is this large, since it'd be
> inefficient to send.
I'm already bypassing it for anything over 256000 bytes.
Mojo
--
Morris Jones
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:00:51 -0700, Potato Chip wrote
> It's happened to me about 3 times, where an email will be sent to my
> server that specifically causes the problem. Killing the spamd process
> causes the sending MTA to resend. It usually occurs with an email
> with a large MIME attachment.
- Original Message -
From: "Potato Chip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 2:00 PM
Subject: RE: Memory usage spikes ...
> I've been calling this the Email Scud problem. I've been hoping for a
> patriot missle for a long time. I ha
AIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 11:44 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Memory usage spikes ...
Yesterday I commented that I was seeing spamd children eating a lot of
memory, pushing the machine into swap. I've been keeping an eye on the
spamd children this morning.
Yesterday I commented that I was seeing spamd children eating a lot of
memory, pushing the machine into swap. I've been keeping an eye on
the spamd children this morning.
Overnight, all five children were using around 4 meg. This morning
sometime, one spamd child shot up to 250M:
Mem: 513948K
Matt Kettler wrote on Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:43:01 -0400:
> Chris S reported his spamd swelling to 45mb with a huge version of
> bigevil.cf he was testing.
>
The latest bigevil.cf needs about 40 - 50 MB *alone*! Together with
several SARE rules our spamd processes were around 90 MB lately. That's
Hello Chr.,
Friday, September 17, 2004, 7:58:11 AM, Stucki (Christoph von Stuckrad)
wrote:
CvS> On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 10:42:20AM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Since your box has 256mb of physical ram, I'd limit it to maximum of
>> 256mb/15mb = 17 spamd's at the highest. I'd really suggest usi
-Original Message-
From: Robert Bartlett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:12 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Memory usage question
-Original Message-
From: Brook Humphrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10
-Original Message-
From: Brook Humphrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:04 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Memory usage question
On Friday 17 September 2004 07:05, Chris Santerre wrote:
> Yeah, bring that 50 down a little :) Maybe 10. M
t was a crazy german ;)
>
> Your memory usage looks pretty normal.
>
> I haven't updated BE in a while. Plan on doing this afternoon. For the
> remaining people using BE, "WTH is wrong with you?" :-)
Chris I know it's not needed but with 3.0rc4 running big evil and a f
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 10:42:20AM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Since your box has 256mb of physical ram, I'd limit it to maximum of
> 256mb/15mb = 17 spamd's at the highest. I'd really suggest using something
> much lower like 10 unless you add some ram.
Even this seems to be dangerous (sometim
At 09:23 AM 9/17/2004, Robert Bartlett wrote:
Are you using the -m parameter of spamd to limit the number of children
it
will spawn? I'd suggest something like -m 6 to start with.
Yeah it is setup for 50:
-d -c -a -m50 -u user -v -H
50 is a LOT of spamd's... even at the low-end of 15mb each that's
>-Original Message-
>From: Robert Bartlett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:24 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: RE: Memory usage question
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 6:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Memory usage question
At 06:56 PM 9/16/2004 -0700, Robert Bartlett wrote:
>Thanks for the reply! Here is the deal,
At 06:56 PM 9/16/2004 -0700, Robert Bartlett wrote:
Thanks for the reply! Here is the deal, we are currently deciding what
we want to do next. Currently we have a Celeron 2.4 gig system with 256
megs of ram and a 40 gig hdd. In the past week or so our system has come
to a halt, under 3 megs availab
> Thanks for the reply! Here is the deal, we are currently deciding what
> we want to do next. Currently we have a Celeron 2.4 gig system with 256
> megs of ram and a 40 gig hdd. In the past week or so our system has come
> to a halt, under 3 megs available, due to a bunch of emails coming in at
>
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 6:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Memory usage question
At 09:26 PM 9/16/2004, Robert Bartlett wrote:
>I remember someone saying something ab
At 09:26 PM 9/16/2004, Robert Bartlett wrote:
I remember someone saying something about memory usage per email that
spamd uses to scan? But cannot find the email, what is the estimated
amount of memory used per SA scan? I also have clamav set up
Varies a lot depending on your configuration
I remember someone saying something about memory usage per
email that spamd uses to scan? But cannot find the
email, what is the estimated amount of memory used per SA scan? I also have clamav set up.
Thank you
Robert Bartlett
Director of Software Engineering
Digital Phoenix Hosting
78 matches
Mail list logo
