-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jason Parsons writes:
> > yep -- various versions of the Linux kernel do not measure "shared"
> > memory in the same way.
> >
> > vanilla 2.4.18/19: reports "shared" correctly
> > 2.4.x with Red Hat patches: incorrect
> > 2.6.x: incorrect
yep -- various versions of the Linux kernel do not measure "shared"
memory in the same way.
vanilla 2.4.18/19: reports "shared" correctly
2.4.x with Red Hat patches: incorrect
2.6.x: incorrect
Is there any way to get at the actual amount of shared memory? Perhaps
comparing the /proc/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jason Parsons writes:
> Howdy.
>
> Following up on this thread... My spamd children don't seem to be
> sharing much memory with their parents:
>
>PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME CPU
> COMMAND
> 14692 alias 17
Howdy.
Following up on this thread... My spamd children don't seem to be
sharing much memory with their parents:
PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME CPU
COMMAND
14692 alias 17 0 40620 34M 2092 S 8.3 0.7 24:24 1 spamd
(this is an example spamd child)
I
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 12:25:45PM -0500, Michael Parker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:22:42AM -0700, Morris Jones wrote:
I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happening
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Jon Trulson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:53:30AM -0600, Jon Trulson wrote:
FWIW, in our case a child would go to 320MB and just stay there
until the child was terminated (even after finishing a message). We do
use AWL and bayes
I use ok_locales es en
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 22:03:21 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Glomph Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the default /usr/share/spamassasin/10_misc.cf file, I have
>
> ok_locales all
> ok_languagesall
>
> Nothing related in the personalized files in /etc/mail/
In the default /usr/share/spamassasin/10_misc.cf file, I have
ok_locales all
ok_languagesall
Nothing related in the personalized files in /etc/mail/spamassassin, or
elsewhere.
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 12:25:45PM -0500, Michael Park
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
> Of all the folks seeing memory issues, are you using ok_languages in
> your config somewhere? If not, please speak up as well.
Yes:
ok_languagesen
Mojo
--
Morris Jones <*>
Monrovia, CA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.whiteoaks.com
Michael Parker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 12:25:45PM -0500, Michael Parker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:22:42AM -0700, Morris Jones wrote:
I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happening on a whiteli
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 12:25:45PM -0500, Michael Parker wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:22:42AM -0700, Morris Jones wrote:
> >
> > I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
> > have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happening on a whitelist
> > or bayes
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Jeff Tucker wrote:
> I captured an exact copy of one of the messages that was being scanned
> when this happened.
> [ ... ]
> Rescanning the same message by calling spamc didn't cause the
> problem. The scan completed in just a couple of seconds.
I did exactly the same expe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff Tucker writes:
> Michael Parker wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:22:42AM -0700, Morris Jones wrote:
> >
> >>I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
> >>have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happeni
Michael Parker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:22:42AM -0700, Morris Jones wrote:
I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happening on a whitelist
or bayes database maintenance event of some sort.
For folks that are
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:53:30AM -0600, Jon Trulson wrote:
FWIW, in our case a child would go to 320MB and just stay there
until the child was terminated (even after finishing a message). We do
use AWL and bayes.
Is it possible to try and find the ms
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:53:30AM -0600, Jon Trulson wrote:
>
> FWIW, in our case a child would go to 320MB and just stay there
> until the child was terminated (even after finishing a message). We do
> use AWL and bayes.
>
Is it possible to try and find the msgs that was being scanned
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:19:17AM -0300, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
In my specific case, the ponit isn't only woth the big memory usage
jumps, but with SA keeping the memory, and never releasing it.
Highwater marks, common in most perl applicatios, don't co
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:22:42AM -0700, Morris Jones wrote:
I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happening on a whitelist
or bayes database maintenance event of some sort.
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:19:17AM -0300, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
> jumps, but with SA keeping the memory, and never releasing it.
Well, there's really no way to do that at the application level -- it's up to
the OS. Typically what happens is:
- process wants X memory
- process gets X memory a
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:19:17AM -0300, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
> In my specific case, the ponit isn't only woth the big memory usage
> jumps, but with SA keeping the memory, and never releasing it.
Highwater marks, common in most perl applicatios, don't concern me as
much as these HUGE jumps
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:25:45 -0500, Michael Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:22:42AM -0700, Morris Jones wrote:
> >
> > I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
> > have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happening on a whitelist
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 7:42 AM
Any chance in going back to something that actually worked? I tried
running a
2.64 version of spamd, but got a mountain of bayes-related errors.
There is an option to only run a single child, which is claimed to be
e
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 05:30:32PM -0700, Loren Wilton wrote:
> It seems a solution here might be to have a spamd child that notices it
> needs to to maintenance should either pass that off to another child created
> specifically for that purpose, or else die after performing the maintenance
Yeah,
> I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
> have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happening on a whitelist
> or bayes database maintenance event of some sort.
It seems a solution here might be to have a spamd child that notices it
needs to to maintenance
Morris Jones wrote on Tue, 5 Oct 2004 10:22:42 -0700 (PDT):
> I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message.
>
This can happen sometimes (rarely) with 2.6x as well! I have already seen
900 MB spamds.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Interne
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:22:42AM -0700, Morris Jones wrote:
> >
> > I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
> > have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happening on a whitelist
> > or bayes database maintenance
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:22:42AM -0700, Morris Jones wrote:
>
> I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
> have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happening on a whitelist
> or bayes database maintenance event of some sort.
>
For folks that are seeing hu
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> Well, it's not running a single child, it's that each child should
> only run 1 message before dying. It's right in the spamd docs, but
> "--max-conn-per-child=1" is what you're looking for.
I set mine to --max-conn-per-child=10 as a compromise, and i
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 10:42:54PM -0700, Loren Wilton wrote:
> There is an option to only run a single child, which is claimed to be
> equivalent to the 2.6x implementation. I don't recall the option
> (something=1), but Theo posted it within the last day here. And I'm almost
> positive it is in
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:06:04AM -0600, Sherwood Botsford wrote:
> Perhaps code to say, "What's my present memory usage?"
> when it starts up, and a periodic "Hmm my memory usage has
> grown by 20%. time to die."
Unfortunately, there's no real way to do that.
> Or perhaps a config entry/command
On Monday 04 October 2004 23:24, Jerry Glomph Black wrote:
> Good enough argument, but the new version has killed off
> two machines that have successfully run SA/spamd with no
> problems since Jan 2002.
>
> The machines leak into oblivion, and Something Bad
> happens (major daemons killed off, etc
> Any chance in going back to something that actually worked? I tried
running a
> 2.64 version of spamd, but got a mountain of bayes-related errors.
There is an option to only run a single child, which is claimed to be
equivalent to the 2.6x implementation. I don't recall the option
(something=
Good enough argument, but the new version has killed off two machines
that have successfully run SA/spamd with no problems since Jan 2002.
The machines leak into oblivion, and Something Bad happens (major daemons killed
off, etc.).
There is definitely some kind of memory resource problem (if not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jerry Glomph Black writes:
> spamd 3.0 does preforking of the child processes.
>
> Nothing wrong with that, but WHY do the children have such enormous RSS
> numbers already when started (>20 Meg per process)? To me, this makes
> no sense.
>
> 3.0 h
spamd 3.0 does preforking of the child processes.
Nothing wrong with that, but WHY do the children have such enormous RSS numbers
already when started (>20 Meg per process)? To me, this makes no sense.
3.0 has rendered two decent machines of mine useless by snarfing up all the RAM.
Can this be p
35 matches
Mail list logo
