On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 06:47:15PM -0600, dman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 05:11:19PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote: > | On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 01:00:12PM -0500, Craig Hughes wrote: > | > On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 04:27, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > | > > One thing to beware of is that Perl will *never* free memory back to the > | > > OS. Ever. > | > > | > That shouldn't matter much in our case, because of the > | > spawn-die-spawn-die-spawn-die nature of spamd. The only process that > | > could be "growing" is the master spamd process, but it's never doing > | > anything that allocates memory. > | > | The only problems come when you get "spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn- > | spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn- > | spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-spawn-crash-and-burn" as > | soon as fetchmail kicks in. > > Have you ever seen a load average of 29.5? (I have, and fetchmail > wasn't involved though SA was) > > That's why exim has the > deliver_queue_load_max > option. I have mine set so that if the load average is above 5.0, > then exim will not spawn a delivery process, which means that no SA > processes will be spawned. The message will just sit in the queue > until the next queue run when it will deliver it if the load average > is below 5.0. > > -D >
Didn't know about that option; that my be a better solution for me that spamd -m 5 -- Duncan Findlay _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
