So I shouldn't read anything into the disparity of memory usage between
the
two boxes?
Check the number of SA children configured. Maybe you have the bad box
limited to 1 or 2 children or some such.
Loren
I'm at a loss as to why the one box is consistently in distress, while the
o
>From a uname -v, they both appear to be #1 SMP Fri Oct 13 17:56:20 EDT 2006.
Here's a uname -a on each:
ServerB (B as in bad):
Linux expurgate2 2.4.21-47.0.1.ELsmp #1 SMP Fri Oct 13 17:56:20 EDT 2006
i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
ServerA (A as in awesome):
Linux expurgate1 2.4.21-47.0.1.ELsmp #1 SMP
Thanks for the quick reply.
So I shouldn't read anything into the disparity of memory usage between the
two boxes?
I'm at a loss as to why the one box is consistently in distress, while the
other is consistently doing great.
I should have mentioned we're using spamd (-m 50) and I've compared th
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, JOW wrote:
> ServerA (the good one) is using nearly all of the 4gb of RAM
> available to it. But ServerB is only using a fraction of available
> RAM and the # of context switches is tons higher, too.
>
> I hope this isn't a silly question, but how significant is this,
> and w
On 28.09.07 14:06, JOW wrote:
> I'm out of my element on this, so please forgive me if I ask something silly.
>
> We have two SpamAssassin (v3.002003) servers on Red Hat, each with 4gb RAM.
> ServerA ROCKS while ServerB SUCKS.
> ServerA (the good one) is using nearly all of the 4gb of RAM availa
I'm out of my element on this, so please forgive me if I ask something silly.
We have two SpamAssassin (v3.002003) servers on Red Hat, each with 4gb RAM.
ServerA ROCKS while ServerB SUCKS.
So I've been comparing the two systems hoping to find some configuration
differences between them.
When I
