Hi,
on my vm running Suse10.0 i can't reproduce this.
Regards,
Arne
Sam Clippinger schrieb am 15.10.2008 03:17:
I forgot to ask earlier -- when you activated full logging, were any log
files actually produced? If I could see them, they would probably be
very helpful in tracking this
You could try running a debug build of spamdyke (unstripped binary,
remote the strip command from Makefile) and attach gdb or strace to a
process (id) that is eating up all cpu. That should help Sam to find
what the problem is.
Note that debug builds have a larger memory footprint, so you might
Hi,
forgot not all of you are software developers, so added some explanation
of how to extract a useable backtrace from a running process with gdb.
Am 15.10.2008 8:27 Uhr, Felix Buenemann schrieb:
You could try running a debug build of spamdyke (unstripped binary,
remote the strip command from
Yes, me also. Looks like this is one of the reasons, why Linux-tools
are mostly
developped for specific systems, when making RPM's. So Spamdyke 4.0.5 seems
to be good for SuSE's, and maybe not on others? Just quick shot from me^^ :)
Arne Metzger schrieb:
Hi,
on my vm running Suse10.0 i can't
Hi Sam,
Will that also solve the issue of smtp errors on the client-side? I
couldn't find any log for those customers who had those errors, not
even in the syslog. I did copy the error tho, if that may be of any
help. Can reproduce that anytime too.
And just to correct myself earlier, its
One of my customers reported a problem like this, he could not send a
message of 23MB.
Outlook Express View the error code: 0x800ccc0f
2008/10/15 Arthur Girardi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Sam,
Will that also solve the issue of smtp errors on the client-side? I
couldn't find any log for those
Hi,
since the spamdyke upgraded to 4.0.5, I noted that my servers working
with a high load, the average of 0.65 and they were left to 3.5,
someone noticed this problem? What may be happening?
tks
--
Muitos homens perdem a saúde para ganhar dinheiro, depois perdem o
dinheiro para ganhar a saúde.
There is that...
I will make the downgrade...
tks!
2008/10/14 Erald Troja [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello,
I second your findings.
We reverted to 4.0.4 right away.
Did not report it as we were unable
to find a good explanation for it.
The spamdyke processes were just lingering each consuming
This is the first I've heard of this -- can you provide any more
information about it? Did those spamdyke processes produce any log
messages or errors? Did they begin eating the CPU before or after
accepting/rejecting a message? Did you try turning on full logging to
see exactly what was
Hi...
2008/10/14 Sam Clippinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is the first I've heard of this -- can you provide any more
information about it? Did those spamdyke processes produce any log
messages or errors?
No errors.
Did they begin eating the CPU before or after
accepting/rejecting a
Hello,
I second your findings.
We reverted to 4.0.4 right away.
Did not report it as we were unable
to find a good explanation for it.
The spamdyke processes were just lingering each consuming
between 70% to 100% of CPU.
Erald Troja
Paulo Henrique wrote:
Hi,
Hi
I too noticed the high cpu usage by spamdyke in the 4.0.5 version.
Like 6 or 7 spamdyke processes running at 100% cpu on a dual
quad-core...
Interesting enough, I noticed not all spamdyke did go 100%, only those
that had some kind of attachment, a gif, jpg, a signature, whatever,
is the number in the logs between the [] the PID?
does anybody have insight?
greg
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
So if I understand correctly, you turned on full logging and your
clients started seeing spamdyke's excessive output in their SMTP
sessions? Yikes! I'll go through the code tonight to see if I can
figure out what might cause that.
-- Sam Clippinger
Arthur Girardi wrote:
Hi
I too noticed
Yes, it is. That's how syslogd logs all of its messages.
-- Sam Clippinger
Greg Cirelle Enterprises wrote:
is the number in the logs between the [] the PID?
does anybody have insight?
greg
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
Sam Clippinger wrote:
Yes, it is. That's how syslogd logs all of its messages.
-- Sam Clippinger
Greg Cirelle Enterprises wrote:
is the number in the logs between the [] the PID?
does anybody have insight?
greg
for what it is worth, I just have debug logging and I noticed
when
Greg Cirelle Enterprises wrote:
Sam Clippinger wrote:
Yes, it is. That's how syslogd logs all of its messages.
-- Sam Clippinger
Greg Cirelle Enterprises wrote:
is the number in the logs between the [] the PID?
does anybody have insight?
greg
for what it is
I forgot to ask earlier -- when you activated full logging, were any log
files actually produced? If I could see them, they would probably be
very helpful in tracking this down.
-- Sam Clippinger
Arthur Girardi wrote:
Hi
I too noticed the high cpu usage by spamdyke in the 4.0.5 version.
I think I may have this one solved. I removed some code in version
4.0.5 that I didn't think was necessary any longer, but it turns out I
wrote it for version 3.1.2 to prevent exactly this problem. Go figure.
I've reverted that change and I'm running the test scripts now. If
everything
19 matches
Mail list logo
