Today my gentoo server that has sat happily churning my mundane (and lightweight) tasks froze and I noticed when it stopped serving DNS queries... and the server was even unresponsive from the command prompt. I rebooted.... and was a bit taken aback at what I found.

The server currently runs, but has a load of over 60, where I'd expect a load of below 0.1. Investigations using top did not suggest that a single process was using vast amounts of processing time... but there were significantly more clamascan processes than I'd expect... and even more procmail processes....

--
$ ps auwx | grep clamscan | grep -v grep | wc -l
42
$ ps auwx | grep procmail | grep -v grep | wc -l
94
$ ps auwx | grep clamassassin | grep -v grep | wc -l
55
--

The first few lines from top say:

--
 PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
15451 usr       20   0 35944  33m  872 D  2.7  3.3   0:00.60 clamscan
 216 root      15  -5     0    0    0 S  0.7  0.0   0:03.80 kswapd0
15116 usr       20   0 76136  15m  668 D  0.7  1.6   0:03.30 clamscan
15299 usr       20   0  2584 1224  840 R  0.7  0.1   0:04.36 top
15428 usr       20   0 61288  57m  872 D  0.7  5.7   0:01.38 clamscan
   1 root      20   0  1648  196  172 S  0.0  0.0   0:00.64 init
   2 root      15  -5     0    0    0 S  0.0  0.0   0:00.00 kthreadd
--

The procmail configuration I've adopted hasn't changed in years...
--
DEFAULT=$HOME/.maildir/
SHELL=/bin/sh
MAILDIR=$HOME/.maildir

:0fw
* < 1024000
| /usr/bin/clamassassin | /usr/bin/spamc -f
--

I'm assuming that my suddenly starting to have problems with this is something to do with an update to clamd/clamassassin... I've a vague recollection that one or the other of them might have been updated when I last synchronised and emerged updates... but I can't remember.

Any ideas? This isn't a heavily loaded server usually - I've more procmail processes than I usually receive in emails in an hour. Something's wrong - can anyone offer any hints? Has anyone else run into this problem? Is there a known 'quick fix'?


Reply via email to