On Wed, 4 May 2005, Justin Mason wrote: > From: Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 15:53:13 -0700 > Subject: Re: memory-usage going BOOM > > jdow writes: > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > BTDT, bought the T-shirt. Adding memory will help. Short term solution > > > can be adding swap space. Another option can be running SA remotely > > > on another machine (users run spamc -d sa.machine.com) > > > > This might be "A GOOD TIME" for someone to create a small exposition > > regarding spamassassin memory usage. I note that it seems to hover > > around 56 megabyte to 65 megabyte range even when freshly spawned. I > > do not run AWL. I have about 5 megabytes of Bayes data. (I train > > lightly of late and only when something new turns up.) I am running > > a fair number of SARE rule sets, about 1.3 megabytes worth. How does > > this add up to 56 megabytes or more? Does perl take that much space? > > Or does its expansion of the rule sets make it so large? > > OK, here's a quick wrap-up of what I've observed regarding memory, > because this has been one of my priorities for 3.1.0:
... > - - SpamAssassin 3.1.0 is a lot better at effective RAM usage than > 3.0.0, using its new preforking algorithm. This is because it > (a) runs with a smaller number of active children, and (b) keeps > one or two servers very busy, using the others for "overflow", > instead of round-robin serving across all the servers equally > (which increases swapping). I've been using Justin's patch: http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3983 which adds this functionality with SpamAssassin 3.0.2 for some time. It's been in production use on our frontline mail servers and seems to work well. It certainly installs into SpamAssassin 3.0.3 and I'll try it out when I move SpamAssassin 3.0.3 into production use. Currently I have this patched version on a couple of test servers and have seen no problems. Some on this list recommended reducing --max-conn-per-child from the default of 200 to reduce possible memory leakage in earlier versions of SpamAssassin. I doubt that this is a problem now, but it might be worth trying as a precautionary measure. -- Dennis Davis, BUCS, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +44 1225 386101
