-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
snowjack writes: > David Brodbeck wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:26:12 -0700, snowjack wrote > >>Yeah, and it is true that SpamAssassin uses lots of RAM (20M per > >>process?) So what, RAM is cheap! > > > > If I'm not mistaken, some of that 20M is actually shared amongst all the > > spamd > > processes, so it's not as much memory usage as you'd think. Five spamd > > processes that each claim to be using 20M may not actually be consuming a > > total of 100M. *nix is tricky that way. ;) > > > > Hmm > # top > PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND > 31162 spamdata 9 0 25108 17M 6680 S 17.5 2.3 0:00 spamd > 31163 spamdata 14 0 24596 16M 7284 S 7.7 2.2 0:00 spamd > > 25108 - 6680 = 18428 KB physical RAM usage > 24596 - 7284 = 17312 KB physical RAM usage > > Am I missing something? No -- that seems to be pretty much right (on Linux platforms at least), according to "man top" and the google results. Sounds like we need to figure out how to get more of our stuff precompiled at spamd startup time so it can be copy-on-writed effectively... - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFBUxfRQTcbUG5Y7woRArrBAJ9WeJR8ZhePYzuGPQCb987SUNzqdgCg00Jq Tmj5eUh62DO7RExY/TXN9bU= =Arh+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
