On 3/6/2013 9:17 AM, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
Options are : /usr/sbin/spamd --create-prefs -x -q --ipv4
--max-children 1 --timeout-child 180 --sql-config --nouser-config
--username spamd --helper-home-dir -s /var/log/spamd.log
--virtual-config-dir=/users/%d/%u -d --pidfile=/var/run/spamd.pid
( 1 child set because of lack of memory. 2 causes it to swap)
As far as I can tell no rulesets have changed. I have these
additional ones added :
# MALWARE BLOCKLIST
"http://www.malwarepatrol.net/cgi/submit?action=list_sa"; -O
*malware.blocklist.cf*
# 99_ANONWHOIS
"http://anonwhois.org/99_anonwhois.cf"; -O *99_anonwhois.cf*
# kAOS rESIgns MTX Blacklist
/usr/local/bin/mtx_blacklist.pl
# SOUGHT rules via sa-update
--channel *sought*.rules.yerp.org --channel updates.spamassassin.org
# Generate Spamassassin rules from the phishing_reply_addresses list
/usr/local/bin/addresses2spamassassin.pl - Prodcues
file:*local_phishing_reply.cf*
*Custom rules in local.cf*
I have a several custom rules comprising of 231 lines. These are
simple rules comprising of some simple regex. Some were copied from
this mailing list. I should turn these off and see what happens.
In the past 24 hours the spamd memory usage has dropped to 198 Mb,
which is a relief, but this happened after I did a update on the
server from squeeze/updates, squeeze, and security. Before time I just
had security configured.
Hi Simon,
I've never really worked with a system that tight on ram but I would
definitely look at the configs you are adding. Some of those look to
change per day and the memory usage seems fairly high.
Here's an x86 system where I'm running a few spamds:
spamd 1088 46.5 2.1 98024 90144 ? R 08:31 29:40 spamd child
root 14509 0.0 1.0 49964 44116 ? Ss Mar04 1:00
/usr/local/bin/spamd -d --min-spare=1 --min-children=5 --max-spare=10
--max-conn-per-child=1000 --max-children=40 -q -x -u spamd
--allowed-ips=127.0.0.1 -r /var/run/spamd.pid
spamd 14697 5.5 2.1 95192 87896 ? R Mar05 39:04 spamd child
spamd 17369 3.4 1.6 73480 66964 ? S 00:18 19:04 spamd child
spamd 18328 1.9 2.2 99632 91804 ? S Mar04 40:01 spamd child
spamd 25112 1.0 2.2 100220 92116 ? S Mar05 19:55 spamd child
spamd 28567 0.5 1.6 74424 67364 ? S Mar05 9:39 spamd child
spamd 29384 0.0 1.1 54908 48348 ? R 03:52 0:05 spamd child
spamd 29656 0.2 1.4 65020 58132 ? S Mar05 3:40 spamd child
spamd 31115 0.0 1.0 49964 42432 ? S 05:01 0:00 spamd child
spamd 32566 0.0 1.0 49964 42432 ? S 06:52 0:00 spamd child
For comparison, your memory foot print seems higher. Are you on a 64
bit system? Assuming note...
regards,
KAM
