RE: Ammount of the RAM used by spamd childs
Thanks All! Now I've about 80MB for child Andrea
Re: Ammount of the RAM used by spamd childs
Balzi Andrea wrote: Thanks All! Now I've about 80MB for child Andrea You're distinctly NOT welcome. I don't help folks who outright blacklist whole ISP's with millions of legitimate users in order to prevent a portion of spam. Particularly when that ISP is one I'm using. Perhaps now that your spamd's are reasonable, you can ditch some of these absurdly ignorant approaches to spam control: A message (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) was received at 30 Sep 2006 3:14:30 +. The following addresses had delivery problems: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Permanent Failure: 550-mail_drop_because_comcast.net_is_in_our_blacklist_/_mail_scartata_perche' Delivery last attempted at Sat, 30 Sep 2006 03:14:46 -
Re: Ammount of the RAM used by spamd childs
From: Bowie Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Balzi Andrea wrote:
-Original Message-
[...]
every child it occupies approximately 450MB of RAM.
My server is a GNU/Linux Debian 3.1r2 with spamassassin v3.1.5 and
Perl v5.8.4 Aren't it too many every 450MB for single child?
That is a bit excessive. My first guess is that you have WAY
too many add-on rule sets (or you are using old ones that should
not be used).
Which rule sets are you currently using?
I'm usign the default rules of spamassassin 3.1.5 with the follow
rules downloaded from rulesemporium:
ANTIDRUG
Antidrug is not needed with current versions of SA.
BLACKLIST_URI
You should use the ws.surbl.org version of this blacklist instead.
See here for more info:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SURBL
BLACKLIST
This is a 16M rulefile and probably a major contributor to your memory
load.
SARE_SPAMCOP_TOP200
The current versions of SA already use this list as a network test.
If you have network tests enabled, you don't need this.
Other than that, all I can say is that you have quite a few rules.
You may want to try removing some of them and restarting spamd. Just
do some trial and error and see which ones make the most difference.
You named the big ones. I use more rule sets than he quoted and only
use about 66 megs.
28211 root 16 0 75368 66m 2400 S 0.0 6.6 0:24.43 spamd
{^_^}
RE: Ammount of the RAM used by spamd childs
Balzi Andrea wrote: Hi I've the problem with my spamassassin. I'm using spamassassin with exim (MTA) and clamav (AntiVirus). My spamassassin start with the follow command line: /usr/sbin/spamd --syslog=local4 --create-prefs --max-children 10 --max-conn-per-child=100 --helper-home-dir -d --pidfile=/var/run/spamd.pid every child it occupies approximately 450MB of RAM. My server is a GNU/Linux Debian 3.1r2 with spamassassin v3.1.5 and Perl v5.8.4 Aren't it too many every 450MB for single child? That is a bit excessive. My first guess is that you have WAY too many add-on rule sets (or you are using old ones that should not be used). Which rule sets are you currently using? -- Bowie
RE: Ammount of the RAM used by spamd childs
-Original Message- [...] every child it occupies approximately 450MB of RAM. My server is a GNU/Linux Debian 3.1r2 with spamassassin v3.1.5 and Perl v5.8.4 Aren't it too many every 450MB for single child? That is a bit excessive. My first guess is that you have WAY too many add-on rule sets (or you are using old ones that should not be used). Which rule sets are you currently using? I'm usign the default rules of spamassassin 3.1.5 with the follow rules downloaded from rulesemporium: TRIPWIRE ANTIDRUG SARE_EVILNUMBERS0 SARE_EVILNUMBERS1 SARE_EVILNUMBERS2 BLACKLIST BLACKLIST_URI RANDOMVAL BOGUSVIRUS SARE_ADULT SARE_FRAUD SARE_BML SARE_RATWARE SARE_SPOOF SARE_BAYES_POISON_NXM SARE_OEM SARE_RANDOM SARE_HEADER SARE_HEADER_ENG SARE_HTML SARE_HTML4 SARE_HTML_ENG SARE_SPECIFIC SARE_OBFU SARE_OBFU2 SARE_OBFU3 SARE_REDIRECT_POST300 SARE_SPAMCOP_TOP200 SARE_GENLSUBJ SARE_GENLSUBJ_ENG SARE_HIGHRISK SARE_UNSUB SARE_URI0 SARE_URI1 SARE_URI2 SARE_URI3 SARE_URI_ENG SARE_WHITELIST SARE_STOCKS SARE_GENLSUBJ4 OUR_WHITELIST (about 296 entry) OUR_BLACKLIST (about 27 entry) OUR_RULES (about 35 rules that check subject) Andrea
RE: Ammount of the RAM used by spamd childs
Balzi Andrea wrote: -Original Message- [...] every child it occupies approximately 450MB of RAM. My server is a GNU/Linux Debian 3.1r2 with spamassassin v3.1.5 and Perl v5.8.4 Aren't it too many every 450MB for single child? That is a bit excessive. My first guess is that you have WAY too many add-on rule sets (or you are using old ones that should not be used). Which rule sets are you currently using? I'm usign the default rules of spamassassin 3.1.5 with the follow rules downloaded from rulesemporium: ANTIDRUG Antidrug is not needed with current versions of SA. BLACKLIST_URI You should use the ws.surbl.org version of this blacklist instead. See here for more info: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SURBL BLACKLIST This is a 16M rulefile and probably a major contributor to your memory load. SARE_SPAMCOP_TOP200 The current versions of SA already use this list as a network test. If you have network tests enabled, you don't need this. Other than that, all I can say is that you have quite a few rules. You may want to try removing some of them and restarting spamd. Just do some trial and error and see which ones make the most difference. -- Bowie
Re: Ammount of the RAM used by spamd childs
On Friday, September 29, 2006, 12:32:08 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: Balzi Andrea wrote: BLACKLIST_URI You should use the ws.surbl.org version of this blacklist instead. See here for more info: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SURBL Though ws.surbl.org is the direct descendant of BLACKLIST_URI, be sure to use multi.surbl.org instead of ws if you use multiple (other) SURBL lists. Basically, use the defaults in SA 3. Actually since you are using SA 3, then you don't need BLACKLIST_URI at all, and you don't need to manually configure SURBL lists. Just make sure network tests are enabled and Net::DNS is current on the system, and SURBLs will be used since they're already in the default configurations. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
Re: Ammount of the RAM used by spamd childs
Balzi Andrea wrote: -Original Message- [...] every child it occupies approximately 450MB of RAM. My server is a GNU/Linux Debian 3.1r2 with spamassassin v3.1.5 and Perl v5.8.4 Aren't it too many every 450MB for single child? That is a bit excessive. My first guess is that you have WAY too many add-on rule sets (or you are using old ones that should not be used). Which rule sets are you currently using? Ditch BLACKLIST and BLACKLIST_URI.. Those are both NOTORIOUS consumers of ram. at least 100mb per file. Also ditch Antidrug. It's only for users of SA 2.6x. SA 3.0 and higher have these rules built-in so loading antidrug is redundant at best, and possibly a downgrade.
