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 down. > > -- Sam Clippinger > > Arthur Girardi wrote: >> 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, >> encoded in base64. The message does finish successfully and life goes >> on, but I started having some slowdown complaints, and after this >> first post to the list, I saw I had the same issue. >> >> If you strace the process while it is hanging at high cpu, you'll see >> a lot of Timeouts mixed with reads and writes of what seems to be the >> content of the base64 attachment. >> >> Then I tried changing output from my normal verbose operation to >> excessive, and enabled full-log-dir, but just as I did that, cpu usage >> fell down, and clients started getting smtp error messages containing >> chunks of spamdyke's excessive output. >> >> I'm running spamdyke on a rhel5. >> >> Cheers >> >> Arthur >> >> Citando Paulo Henrique <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> >>> 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 message? >>>> >>> Apparently once the message is accepted. >>> >>> >>> Did you try turning on full logging to >>> >>>> see exactly what was going on? >>>> >>> Yet I did not. >>> >>> What OS are you running? >>> >>> Linux Slackware 12.1, kernel 2.6.24-5-smp >>> >>> >>> tks. >>> >>>> -- Sam Clippinger >>>> >>>> Erald Troja wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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, >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> spamdyke-users mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> spamdyke-users mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> "Muitos homens perdem a saúde para ganhar dinheiro, depois perdem o >>> dinheiro para ganhar a saúde. - Confúcio" >>> >>> Paulo Henrique Fonseca >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> _______________________________________________ >>> spamdyke-users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spamdyke-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >> > _______________________________________________ > spamdyke-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users _______________________________________________ spamdyke-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
