-----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 processes running; if anyone can catch a server doing otherwise, and figure out *why*, we'd much appreciate it ;) - --j. > 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 Lambie wrote: > > > > > 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 searching this > >>> group from the moment that I upgraded my mail server to 3.01 (about > >>> 10 days ago) and believe I've tried implementing every solution that > >>> has been offered for people that have posted about memory and load > >>> average problems. Maybe I've missed something, maybe I'm not > >>> getting it, maybe someone can help. > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Have you tried with --max-conn-per-child=20 on the spamd command line > >> ? This will force the children to die after 20 connections and > >> respawn, clearing up any memory leaks and freeing the memory in use > >> by the child. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Rick > > > > > > Ahhh, I didn't read closely enough and thought the -m switch was the > > same as --max-conn-per-child. Doh. Thanks Rick and Jay, I'm thinking > > this might work! > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFBiXc+MJF5cimLx9ARAgr0AKCb+H/19i7o/AoNSBKJ9geI9UNAswCfV+I0 crThdja8oTnTawEX5axu+mo= =VhO7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
