On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 12:07, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: > Trog wrote: > > > >If you're scanning multiple 1GB files concurrently, then your going to > >use 1-2GB of memory. > > > That's just it. I put a size limit on my mail system, BEFORE clamd has a > chance to scan it, > so I know for a fact that no mail ever exceeds 50MB. > Perhaps MaxThreads 32 has something to do with the 3 GB memory usage ....
MaxThreads doesn't have a direct correlation to memory usage. clamd will not start threads it doesn't need, and unused threads will exit if there is no work for them to do. > Now comes a question : what does clamd (the devel versions) do when it > cannot allocate additional memory ? > I was under the impressions that old versions simply "returns an error > and wait" instead of just died. > Which makes running daemontools alone insufficient. It'll return an error and attempt to continue in most instances. > > If that were true, is there a plan to change that behaviour to > "die/panic on memory errors"? > Is there any plan to implement some kind of built-in memory-limiter on > clamd? As Nigel has stated on more than one occassion, memory usage in the current development tree is much more predictable than in the current stable version. -trog
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
