On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 12:09 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > On Son, 2010-09-05 at 17:44 -0500, Chris wrote: > > On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 12:54 -0700, John Hardin wrote: > > > On Sun, 5 Sep 2010, Chris wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 12:33 -0500, Len Conrad wrote: > > > >>> Mem: 772880k total, 685316k used, 87564k free, 31344k > > > >>> buffers > > > >>> Swap: 1076312k total, 249032k used, 827280k free, 156328k > > > >>> cached > > > >> > > > >> 250MB swapped, for less than 1 GB RAM, used is disastrous for an MTA. > > > >> > > > >> Increase RAM to 2GB, or until swap is always "0k used" > > > > > > > > It's just a single user home system. True, I probably do need to > > > > increase ram but I 'don't' think this has a bearing on this issue > > > > though > > > > I may be wrong. > > > > > > Your system is swapping. That kills performance, pretty much across the > > > board. Either buy more memory or accept the impact of an underprovisioned > > > machine on the performance of mail delivery. > > > > > > Do you really need your mail to be delivered _that_ promptly? If > > > interactive performance is acceptable then what does it matter if an > > > email > > > (delivered in the background) takes 30 seconds or 300 seconds to be > > > stuffed into your inbox? > > > > Thanks for the input John, I can accept 30 or 45 seconds of drive access > > however when it comes to 300 I can't accept that. And you're absolutely > > If it's really drive access, it smells like trashing (or you have an > awfully and incredibly slow I/O subsystem). > 5 minutes is almost zero in the email world. SMTP never was real-time > anyway. > > > correct, the problem is my lack of memory I realize that now. > > How many of the various daemons (spamd, clamd, mimedefang, MTAs) do you > run (even potentially) in parallel? > And how much (unshared) RSS do they take? > Just limit that to, say 2 or 3 of each, if only to avoid trashing. > > FWIW I had a similar situation (on much larger hardware. But running 80 > mimedefang processes in parallel doesn't make too much sense anyways - > even with 4 CPUs). > > Bernd
One spamd process now (had two before), one clamd process (since stopped) and postfix to process spam reports and local mail PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 18330 root 20 0 66504 56m 632 S 0.0 7.5 0:00.00 spamd USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND root 11589 0.3 7.5 67936 58676 ? S 16:21 0:05 spamdchild postfix 6582 0.0 0.1 4024 1252 ? S 15:53 0:00 pickup -l -t fifo postfix 20985 0.0 0.0 4164 684 ? S Aug04 0:05 qmgr -l -t fifo - -- Chris KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
