-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Patrick von der Hagen writes: > Dennis Davis wrote: > [...] > > 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. > > I am absulotely CERTAIN that memory leakage is a huge problem at the > moment. Using SpamAssassin 3.0.2 for threee month I witnessed no > problems at all, but on two consecutive days memory-usage went through > the roof and killed my server. on 3.1.0 or 3.0.2? > There is no AWL and even with Bayes > disabled some spamd-processses reached up to 400MB of memory usage. > After setting "--max-conn-per-child " I haven't seen more than 200MB > for a single spamd, which is five or even six times as much as usual > (littel bit more than 30MB). Are you limiting the size of messages being passed to spamd? Scanning multi-MB messages will cause RAM usage to go up exponentially, which is why spamc doesn't do this and why you shouldn't do that ;) > I suppose there are spams sent to my server that trigger a > SpamAssassin-bug. I don't know wheter the spammers really know that they > trigger a memory-leak, but if they do, I expect that all of us will have > to face a huge problem quite soon. as far as I know, there is not a remotely-exploitable bug here. Obviously these would be more serious and we encourage those to be reported on the bugzilla. So far the cases we know of (and which have enough report detail to work it out) are caused by massive on-disk DB files, or overlarge messages being passed to spamd. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFCelNoMJF5cimLx9ARAi6aAJ0TJDSvJdAK2aMGPPn3GLuW0AlcEgCgh5wP m5qxcbj5zQPQSQXMnxERn+Y= =dOeH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
