On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, John Hardin wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Kris Deugau wrote:

 RW wrote:
>   On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:04:58 -0500
>   Kris Deugau wrote:
> > > 23:23:32 mfs2 spamd/main[26981]: prefork: child states: BI
> >   23:23:34 mfs2 spamd/main[26981]: prefork: child states: BI
> >   23:23:35 mfs2 spamd/main[26981]: prefork: child states: BI
> >   23:39:20 mfs2 spamd/main[26981]: prefork: child states: BB
> >   23:39:20 mfs2 spamd/main[26981]: prefork: child states: BBB
> >   23:39:20 mfs2 spamd/main[26981]: prefork: child states: BBBB
> >   23:39:20 mfs2 spamd/main[26981]: prefork: child states: BBBBB
> > This doesn't look anything like the spamd options you
>   quoted. Suspiciously 5 is the default for max-children, and it's
>   consistent with the defaults for min-spare and max-spare too.

 I should have added a "...." on the bottom of that list;  I didn't think
 it useful to show the full progression up to the defined max_children
 setting of 60 (which it usually reaches within a second or two).  spamd is
 behaving properly at that point and chewing through mail as fast as a
 child process can grab some CPU.

You posted this command line:

/usr/local/bin/spamd -d -x -q -r /var/run/spamd.pid --min-children=59 --min-spare=1 --max-spare=1 --max-conn-per-child=100 -m 60 -s local1 -u spamd --timeout-child=60 -i 0.0.0.0 -A <IP list> --syslog-ident spamd/main

Why don't we see something like "prefork: child states: BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"?

...to answer my own question, max-spare overrides it?

Is there some reason you're setting max-spare to 1 instead of leaving it at 2 or setting it to something like 5?

--
 John Hardin KA7OHZ                    http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
 jhar...@impsec.org    FALaholic #11174     pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
 key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Phobias should not be the basis for laws.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Tomorrow: the 9th anniversary of the loss of STS-107 Columbia

Reply via email to