> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 11:03:39AM -0600, Dallas L. Engelken wrote: > > K. So a SPAMC PING is not really a PING.. It's an 'is there an > > available free child check'. :) > > Well, that's technically a ping. ;) (lots of winking going > on today... ;) ) >
Well not really, a ping should give you an immediate response... Up or down. Available or not. > The "PING" command is a request to find out if spamd is > available to process new messages. Technically, if all the > children are busy, it's not available to process new messages. > In the case of maxchildren reached, the SPAMC PING is sitting in queue with the CHECK's waiting for a child to handle it. So really, a ping should always succeed assuming you don't time it out with an alarm yourself. Since I alarm my SPAMC PING at 30 seconds, I will 'assume' there are either no available children to process the request or the spamd engine is hung. That's where the fine line is.. If the spamd engine is hung, I want to hup it.. If the children are full, I'd ignore it.. But since PING can be queued just like a CHECK, there is no definitive way to tell the difference. > If you're looking to see if the process is running normally, > and generally getting status on what is going on, it's not so > trivial. With the new httpd-esque version that is in 3.1, > there was talk that we provide some form of HTTP-esque server > which simply spits out a parsable status ala httpd's > server-status. That would let you know that things are > running, and what the children states are, and anything else > it feels like letting you know (# of messages processed, # of > ham/spam, etc.) But this doesn't exist yet. > That would be real nice.. D
