Bill
wouldn't like to comment on the changes, I just see people see get
positive results from it (ie lowest memory usage).
I don't use spamd to invoke spamassassin myself so haven't suffered from
the problem. (I use MailScanner)
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:43:33AM +, Martin Hepworth wrote:
> There's a bugilla reference to this and a patch for the patch there as well
> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3983
That patch is about a change in how the spamd processes are used,
right? Instead of using all --m
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 07:19:38AM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
>
> Since only one child process is so large and that they are all stared
> at the same time (e.g. processed the same number of requests) I would
> think its memory usage would be related to a specific message that
> spamd process handl
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:02PM -0800, Loren Wilton wrote:
> BTW, this probably means that you have a really big whitelist or bayes db,
> and possibly expire isn't working as you think it is. Might be worth
> checking on that.
I'm not using bayes (AFAIK ;), as I'm doing site-wide filtering wit
Bill
gmame's search was screwed yesterday. will try agian today and bookmark
the thing ;-)
ok the search term on gmame you need is "low memory"
There's a bugilla reference to this and a patch for the patch there as well
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3983
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr
> By the way, I set --max-conn-per-child=20 (yes, very low) and that
> seems to have solved the problem with a given spamd process eating
> memory.
>
> But I'm still seeing a lot of:
>
> Jan 11 10:03:57 mardy spamd[13158]: server hit by SIGCHLD
> Is that a result of the child process being kill
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:14:03AM +, Martin Hepworth wrote:
> Bill
>
>
> Alot of people seem to be noticed this, there is a small memory patch
> floating around the email list archives you could try.
Do you remember any good keywords subject or author to help in
locating the patch? I'm no
Hi!
same problem here;
as workaround I restart spamd every day
> Take a look for massive AWL or Bayes db files in the filesystem --
> that has been reported to cause it in the past...
of course; 400+ users
-rw---1 exim exim 31 Jan 11 15:38 bayes.lock
-rw---1 exim
Bill
Alot of people seem to be noticed this, there is a small memory patch
floating around the email list archives you could try.
It missed the 3.02 cut off, but apparently works fine with this version.
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Bill Mo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Take a look for massive AWL or Bayes db files in the filesystem --
that has been reported to cause it in the past...
- --j.
Ryan Castellucci writes:
> I've been seeing the same thing on RedHat 9, with spamassassin 3.0.2.
> Anyone have a fix?
>
> On
I've been seeing the same thing on RedHat 9, with spamassassin 3.0.2.
Anyone have a fix?
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:24:27 -0800, Bill Moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's interesting how one process (of all started at the same time) is
> using so much memory.
>
> # ps aux | egrep '(spamd|USER)'
It's interesting how one process (of all started at the same time) is
using so much memory.
# ps aux | egrep '(spamd|USER)'
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
root 10437 0.0 3.4 92440 17896 ? S10:33 0:04 /usr/sbin/spamd
--max-children 5 -d --p
I've got a low traffic mail server running Debian Woody with backports
for SA and Exim:
Exim: 4.34-7.amwoody.1 0
SA: 3.0.2-1
Perl: 5.6.1
Again, low traffic. I rotate daily, so:
$ wc -l /var/log/exim4/mainlog.1
2467 /var/log/exim4/mainlog.1
I just upgraded a few days ago to 3.0 f
13 matches
Mail list logo
