On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott writes:
I did realize I had big evil running.. Which by removing that it cut my
memory usage to 42MB per child.. What is the recommended replacement for
big evil? Is it already part of 3.0.1?
SURBL.
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Jon Trulson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The --max-children=1 flag to spamd has 'solved' the issue for me...
Sorry, that should be '--max-conn-per-child=1'.
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Trulson writes:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott writes:
I did realize I had big evil running.. Which by removing that it cut my
memory usage to 42MB per child.. What is
and left the following:
70_sare_random.cf
evilnumbers.cf
antidrug.cf
DomainDigits1.cf
As far as I can tell those are all the third party rule sets.
They are all 3rd party (aftermarket?) rule sets. There others, which may
or may not be useful to you.
Indeed my
memory usage dropped from
Scott Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 11/08/2004 02:24:50 PM:
Per everyone's recommendation I have removed the following .cf files
from
my /etc/mail/spamassassin directory:
bigevil.cf
bogus-virus-warnings.cf
tripwire.cf
and left the following:
70_sare_random.cf
evilnumbers.cf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott writes:
I did realize I had big evil running.. Which by removing that it cut my
memory usage to 42MB per child.. What is the recommended replacement for
big evil? Is it already part of 3.0.1?
SURBL. Support for it is builtin to 3.0.x by
My personal experience is when I start spamd it gets up to about 90M per
child within the 1st minute of running. It never gets any higher than
that, at least that I have noticed.
90 megs is high for most people. Do you have bigevil or some such as a
rules file?
Loren
I did realize I had big evil running.. Which by removing that it cut my
memory usage to 42MB per child.. What is the recommended replacement for
big evil? Is it already part of 3.0.1?
Thanks..
Loren Wilton wrote:
My personal experience is when I start spamd it gets up to about 90M per
child
I've read this mail and the replies to it, and I don't understand why
you are seeing these problems. I'm running SA on an ia32 Linux box and
a SPARC Solaris box, and I see no problems with the child processes or
memory usage.
One big difference is that I'm using perl 5.6.1 and LANG=C . It is
My personal experience is when I start spamd it gets up to about 90M per
child within the 1st minute of running. It never gets any higher than
that, at least that I have noticed.
I tried setting the variables to what you set with no improvement. I am
running Perl 5.8.4 and SA 3.0.1..
I am
jplesset wrote:
SA 3.0.1, yes.
So, because I see 11-12 processes, even with -m 3, what should I do
about it?
jay
Hi,
I'd check to make sure that you are actually running 3.x and that there
are no old libraries around. I'm sure one of the devs will have better
information.
Regards,
Rick
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
jplesset writes:
Hopefully . . .
I'm still hovering around 11 spamd processes. it goes up to 15, drops
to 9, but seems to stay around 11 or so.
Guys -- we've heard this occasionally.
There should never be more than (--max-children) + 1 spamd
jplesset wrote:
I'm very sure it's 3.0.1, yes. 2.xx didn't do this at all. I'm new to
this forum, not sure what you mean by one of the devs. . .
thank you
jay
Hi,
Reply to the list as that is where the devs (the developers of SA) live.
I'm just a user of SA, although I hope a cluefull user
There should never be more than (--max-children) + 1 spamd processes
running; if anyone can catch a server doing otherwise, and figure out
*why*, we'd much appreciate it ;)
This was a bit of a coincidence. Read this email this morning, and then
30mins ago my SA server slowed to a absolute
Ok, this seems to be a *lot* more stable from a memory standpoint:
spamd -m 3 --max-conn-per-child=3
But now I'm seeing this in my mail logs every few seconds:
Nov 3 15:46:58 mail spamd[18881]: server hit by SIGCHLD
Nov 3 15:46:58
Oban Lambie wrote:
I've now gone over 24 hours without a lock up and am thinking that I've
got the correct servers and --max-conn-per-child configured. However, I
am seeing a lot of these entries in the error logs (about 1 every 30
seconds)...
Nov 4 11:26:31 mail spamd[14372]: server hit by
Oban, the log entry you see does not appear to be an error, but
confirmation of what you set. Child processes are killed off after
processing 3 messages. Then a new one is started. That's what you're
seeing.
jay
Oban Lambie wrote:
Ok, this seems to be a *lot* more stable from a memory
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Kang, Joseph S. wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:10 PM
To: Oban Lambie
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Memory issues have forced me back to 2.64
BTW could you
Oban Lambie wrote:
The good news was that 3.01 was really, really good at tagging spam and
I'd love to get back to it. The bad news was that no matter what I did
I could not stop the memory problems and the resulting lock-ups with 3.0
AND 3.01. I've been reading and searching this group from
Oban, I'm having a somewhat similar issue, though a different environment.
SpamAssassin 3.0.1, Solaris 9, and iPlanet Messaigng 5.2p2. I find that
when I started spamd,with no special flags, other than -d, I got a large
number of spamd processes running. This number increased over about 20
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Oban Lambie wrote:
The good news was that 3.01 was really, really good at tagging spam
and I'd love to get back to it. The bad news was that no matter what
I did I could not stop the memory problems and the resulting lock-ups
with 3.0 AND 3.01. I've been reading and
Hopefully . . .
I'm still hovering around 11 spamd processes. it goes up to 15, drops
to 9, but seems to stay around 11 or so.
My server is much smaller than yours, and has only 256 megs of ram, so
it's kind of important to keep these things in line. . .
Sparc RAM is so expensive...
jay
Oban
jplesset wrote:
Oban, I'm having a somewhat similar issue, though a different environment.
SpamAssassin 3.0.1, Solaris 9, and iPlanet Messaigng 5.2p2. I find that
when I started spamd,with no special flags, other than -d, I got a large
number of spamd processes running. This number increased
Oban Lambie wrote:
jplesset wrote:
Ok, this seems to be a *lot* more stable from a memory standpoint:
spamd -m 3 --max-conn-per-child=3
But now I'm seeing this in my mail logs every few seconds:
Nov 3 15:46:58 mail spamd[18881]:
jplesset wrote:
Hopefully . . .
I'm still hovering around 11 spamd processes. it goes up to 15, drops
to 9, but seems to stay around 11 or so.
My server is much smaller than yours, and has only 256 megs of ram, so
it's kind of important to keep these things in line. . .
Sparc RAM is so
SA 3.0.1, yes.
So, because I see 11-12 processes, even with -m 3, what should I do
about it?
jay
Rick Macdougall wrote:
jplesset wrote:
Hopefully . . .
I'm still hovering around 11 spamd processes. it goes up to 15,
drops to 9, but seems to stay around 11 or so.
My server is much smaller
26 matches
Mail list logo
