> Simon Byrnand wrote on Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:41:35 +1300: > >> 128MB is not enough in my experience. I found that with 128MB of ram >> that I >> had to limit concurant scanning to no more than 5 spamd processes at >> once >> or a burst of incomming traffic would push the machine into swap >> rendering >> it unusable. >> > > But if that problem occurs you would see the different spamd processes in > top > and not only one spamd entry, would you? I ask because we had the same > problem > happen twice, but not any concurrent spamd processes, just spamd grabbing > enormous amounts (800 MB) of memory.
Yes, the situation I'm talking about is lots of spamd processes running at once using lots of memory. (Not to mention the local delivery processes running at the same time as well) Spamd using 800MB of ram is a bug, and one which I've never encountered yet in months of using spamd, so it's probably something to do with your particular config.....(perhaps a bug or corrupt installation of your version of Perl ?) Regards, Simon ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email sponsored by: Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo The Event For Linux Datacenter Solutions & Strategies in The Enterprise Linux in the Boardroom; in the Front Office; & in the Server Room http://www.enterpriselinuxforum.com _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
