On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 14:31 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> Okay, I ran a check on my logs since midnight - yes, I also see a lot of
> child processes running for less than 10secs, in fact slightly more
> than 50%. Interesting issue.
>
Here's the results of a scan across all my mail logs:
Processin
Per Jessen wrote:
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> Yeah - maybe there is some indication in the log? I think there is
>>> a switch that determines how many emails a child will process before
>>> needing restart. (just looked it up: --max-conn-per-child)
>>> I just checked my logs, during the last 9
> Yeah - maybe there is some indication in the log? I think there is a
> switch that determines how many emails a child will process before
> needing restart. (just looked it up: --max-conn-per-child)
> I just checked my logs, during the last 9 hours I have 6016 of these:
>
> spamd[11362]: spa
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Yeah - maybe there is some indication in the log? I think there is a
switch that determines how many emails a child will process before
needing restart. (just looked it up: --max-conn-per-child)
I just checked my logs, during the last 9 hours I have 6016 of these:
spam
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 23:16 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Martin, generally speaking, the parent can only report the signal and
that the child has gone away. The child would have to report on why.
OK, rephrase that to "a pity the child doesn't say why its generating a
SIGCH
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 16:46 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
>> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>
>> > What causes a spamd 3.2.5 child process to be terminated by
>> > receiving a SIGCHLD signal?
>> >
>>
>> A timeout in the child perhaps?
>>
> That thought that may be the reason. It c
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 16:46 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> > What causes a spamd 3.2.5 child process to be terminated by receiving
> > a SIGCHLD signal?
> >
>
> A timeout in the child perhaps?
>
That thought that may be the reason. It certainly seems to apply when a
child
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> What causes a spamd 3.2.5 child process to be terminated by receiving
> a SIGCHLD signal?
>
A parent process receives a SIGCHLD when a child process terminates.
> My last month's logs show 7 of them and I can't work out what caused
> them to be sent. However, Jose Luis
What causes a spamd 3.2.5 child process to be terminated by receiving a
SIGCHLD signal?
I've looked at the spamc and spamd manpages but there's no mention of
them there. I can't remember seeing them discussed on this maillist
either.
My last month's logs show 7 of them and I can't work out what
