On 3/5/2013 7:36 AM, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
I just upgraded a small server from 3.3.1 to 3.3.2 (Debain Squeeze).
I notice that spamd now takes 64% of the memory which is 317 mb. This
is rather high in my opinion.
I realize this may well be a Debian specific question, but does
Hi KAM,
Options are : /usr/sbin/spamd --create-prefs -x -q --ipv4
--max-children 1 --timeout-child 180 --sql-config --nouser-config
--username spamd --helper-home-dir -s /var/log/spamd.log
--virtual-config-dir=/users/%d/%u -d --pidfile=/var/run/spamd.pid
( 1
child set because of lack of
On 03/06/2013 03:17 PM, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
Hi KAM,
Options are : /usr/sbin/spamd --create-prefs -x -q --ipv4
--max-children 1 --timeout-child 180 --sql-config --nouser-config
--username spamd --helper-home-dir -s /var/log/spamd.log
--virtual-config-dir=/users/%d/%u -d
On 3/6/2013 9:17 AM, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
Options are : /usr/sbin/spamd --create-prefs -x -q --ipv4
--max-children 1 --timeout-child 180 --sql-config --nouser-config
--username spamd --helper-home-dir -s /var/log/spamd.log
--virtual-config-dir=/users/%d/%u -d --pidfile=/var/run/spamd.pid
Hi KAM and AxB,
The system is a small low cost VM. The provider
(for some reason) only offers to move the server to a new box, instead
of adding an extra half gig, which is pretty poor. I don't have the time
to spare for such a move for the moment. Yep - It's 64bit : amd64.
Rule sets. I
On 3/6/2013 9:53 AM, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
Hi KAM and AxB,
The system is a small low cost VM. The provider (for some reason)
only offers to move the server to a new box, instead of adding an
extra half gig, which is pretty poor. I don't have the time to spare
for such a move for the
Guess what? After removal of,
local_phishing_reply.cf
99_anonwhois.cf
malware.blocklist.cf
the memory usage dropped to
15% of RAM.
Time to add more children into the mix.
Cheers, S
On
2013-03-06 15:55, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/6/2013 9:53 AM, Simon
Loewenthal wrote:
Hi
On 03/06/2013 04:07 PM, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
Guess what? After removal of,
local_phishing_reply.cf
99_anonwhois.cf
malware.blocklist.cf
the memory usage dropped to
15% of RAM.
Time to add more children into the mix.
Cheers, S
good to hear...
if not running already, Razor Pyzor,
I have Razor and Pyzor running.
(Although Pyzor seems to give
errors these days with a pyzor: error: TERMINATED, signal 15 (000f)
even though .pyzor/servers is in the right place, and pyzor discover
downloads the server(s) correctly. Rather strange. )
Never used
iXhash. Shall look into this
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 15:53 +0100, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
Hi KAM and AxB,
The system is a small low cost VM. The provider
(for some reason) only offers to move the server to a new box, instead
of adding an extra half gig, which is pretty poor. I don't have the time
to spare for such a
On 03/06/2013 04:51 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 15:53 +0100, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
Hi KAM and AxB,
The system is a small low cost VM. The provider
(for some reason) only offers to move the server to a new box, instead
of adding an extra half gig, which is pretty poor.
Hmm, we have some BL460 G1s we're gonna throw out soon. Hopefully
some BL860 Itaniums as well next year.
You can have those as well :)
On 2013-03-06 17:04, Axb wrote:
On 03/06/2013 04:51 PM, Martin
Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 15:53 +0100, Simon
Loewenthal wrote:
Hi KAM
I'll lower my price:
3 vouchers for medium BK menus :)
ok - enuff of OT :)
On 03/06/2013 05:10 PM, JK4 wrote:
Hmm, we have some BL460 G1s we're gonna throw out soon. Hopefully
some BL860 Itaniums as well next year.
You can have those as well :)
On 2013-03-06 17:04, Axb wrote:
On
Hi all,
I just upgraded a small server from 3.3.1 to 3.3.2
(Debain Squeeze).
I notice that spamd now takes 64% of the memory
which is 317 mb. This is rather high in my opinion.
I realize this may
well be a Debian specific question, but does _spamassassin
3.3.2-2~bpo60+1_ have any
14 matches
Mail list logo
