Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 23:16 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Martin, generally speaking, the parent can only report the signal and
that the child has gone away. The child would have to report on why.
OK, rephrase that to a pity the child doesn't say why its generating a
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Yeah - maybe there is some indication in the log? I think there is a
switch that determines how many emails a child will process before
needing restart. (just looked it up: --max-conn-per-child)
I just checked my logs, during the last 9 hours I have 6016 of these:
Yeah - maybe there is some indication in the log? I think there is a
switch that determines how many emails a child will process before
needing restart. (just looked it up: --max-conn-per-child)
I just checked my logs, during the last 9 hours I have 6016 of these:
spamd[11362]: spamd:
Per Jessen wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Yeah - maybe there is some indication in the log? I think there is
a switch that determines how many emails a child will process before
needing restart. (just looked it up: --max-conn-per-child)
I just checked my logs, during the last 9 hours I have
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 14:31 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Okay, I ran a check on my logs since midnight - yes, I also see a lot of
child processes running for less than 10secs, in fact slightly more
than 50%. Interesting issue.
Here's the results of a scan across all my mail logs:
Processing
Martin Gregorie wrote:
What causes a spamd 3.2.5 child process to be terminated by receiving
a SIGCHLD signal?
A parent process receives a SIGCHLD when a child process terminates.
My last month's logs show 7 of them and I can't work out what caused
them to be sent. However, Jose Luis
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 16:46 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
What causes a spamd 3.2.5 child process to be terminated by receiving
a SIGCHLD signal?
A timeout in the child perhaps?
That thought that may be the reason. It certainly seems to apply when a
child runs
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 16:46 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
What causes a spamd 3.2.5 child process to be terminated by
receiving a SIGCHLD signal?
A timeout in the child perhaps?
That thought that may be the reason. It certainly seems to
What causes a spamd 3.2.5 child process to be terminated by receiving a
SIGCHLD signal?
I've looked at the spamc and spamd manpages but there's no mention of
them there. I can't remember seeing them discussed on this maillist
either.
My last month's logs show 7 of them and I can't work out what
