Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
There is that... I will make the downgrade... tks! 2008/10/14 Erald Troja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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 > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > 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 spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
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? Did they begin eating the CPU before or after accepting/rejecting a message? Did you try turning on full logging to see exactly what was going on? What OS are you running? -- 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 > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users > ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
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 > Noticing 99.9% cpu (in top) for spamdyke overall load average between .46 and 1.8 greg ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
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 >> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >> > ___ > spamdyke-users mailing list > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > 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 spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
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 spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
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 >>> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>> >> ___ >> spamdyke-users mailing list >> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >> 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 > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users > ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
is the number in the logs between the [] the PID? does anybody have insight? greg ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
So if I understand correctly, you turned on full logging and your clients started seeing spamdyke's excessive output in their SMTP sessions? Yikes! I'll go through the code tonight to see if I can figure out what might cause that. -- 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 spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>> ___ >>> spamdyke-users mailing list >>> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >>> 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 >> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >> >> > > > ___ > spamdyke-users mailing list > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users > ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
Yes, it is. That's how syslogd logs all of its messages. -- Sam Clippinger Greg Cirelle Enterprises wrote: > is the number in the logs between the [] the PID? > > does anybody have insight? > > greg > ___ > spamdyke-users mailing list > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users > ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
Sam Clippinger wrote: > Yes, it is. That's how syslogd logs all of its messages. > > -- Sam Clippinger > > Greg Cirelle Enterprises wrote: > >> is the number in the logs between the [] the PID? >> >> does anybody have insight? >> >> greg >> for what it is worth, I just have debug logging and I noticed when folks that typically get large files, images, xls files as soon as it goes to ALLOW I get the high cpu reading in top. don't know if this helps or not, just an observation example Oct 14 17:40:18 trooper spamdyke[22601]: DEBUG(filter_rdns_missing()@filter.c:841): checking for missing rDNS; rdns: (unknown) Oct 14 17:40:18 trooper spamdyke[22601]: FILTER_RDNS_MISSING ip: 38.103.145.235 Oct 14 17:40:18 trooper spamdyke[22601]: DEBUG(filter_ip_whitelist()@filter.c:1120): searching IP whitelist file(s); ip: 38.103.145.235 Oct 14 17:40:18 trooper spamdyke[22601]: DEBUG(filter_sender_whitelist()@filter.c:1740): searching sender whitelist(s); sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oct 14 17:40:19 trooper spamdyke[22601]: DEBUG(filter_recipient_whitelist()@filter.c:2106): searching recipient whitelist(s); recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oct 14 17:40:19 trooper spamdyke[22601]: FILTER_RECIPIENT_WHITELIST recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] file: /home/vpopmail/rcptwhitelst(5) Oct 14 17:40:19 trooper spamdyke[22601]: DEBUG(filter_recipient_relay()@filter.c:2176): checking relaying; relay-level: 3 recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ip: 38.103.145.235 rdns: (unknown) local_recipient: true relaying_allowed: false Oct 14 17:40:19 trooper spamdyke[22601]: ALLOWED from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] origin_ip: 38.103.145.235 origin_rdns: (unknown) auth: (unknown) This gave a 99.9% cpu in top greg ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
Greg Cirelle Enterprises wrote: > Sam Clippinger wrote: > >> Yes, it is. That's how syslogd logs all of its messages. >> >> -- Sam Clippinger >> >> Greg Cirelle Enterprises wrote: >> >> >>> is the number in the logs between the [] the PID? >>> >>> does anybody have insight? >>> >>> greg >>> >>> > for what it is worth, I just have debug logging and I noticed > when folks that typically get large files, images, xls files > as soon as it goes to ALLOW I get the high cpu reading > in top. > > don't know if this helps or not, just an observation > > example > Oct 14 17:40:18 trooper spamdyke[22601]: > DEBUG(filter_rdns_missing()@filter.c:841): checking for missing rDNS; > rdns: (unknown) > Oct 14 17:40:18 trooper spamdyke[22601]: FILTER_RDNS_MISSING ip: > 38.103.145.235 > Oct 14 17:40:18 trooper spamdyke[22601]: > DEBUG(filter_ip_whitelist()@filter.c:1120): searching IP whitelist > file(s); ip: 38.103.145.235 > Oct 14 17:40:18 trooper spamdyke[22601]: > DEBUG(filter_sender_whitelist()@filter.c:1740): searching sender > whitelist(s); sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Oct 14 17:40:19 trooper spamdyke[22601]: > DEBUG(filter_recipient_whitelist()@filter.c:2106): searching recipient > whitelist(s); recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Oct 14 17:40:19 trooper spamdyke[22601]: FILTER_RECIPIENT_WHITELIST > recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] file: /home/vpopmail/rcptwhitelst(5) > Oct 14 17:40:19 trooper spamdyke[22601]: > DEBUG(filter_recipient_relay()@filter.c:2176): checking relaying; > relay-level: 3 recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ip: 38.103.145.235 rdns: > (unknown) local_recipient: true relaying_allowed: false > Oct 14 17:40:19 trooper spamdyke[22601]: ALLOWED from: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] origin_ip: > 38.103.145.235 origin_rdns: (unknown) auth: (unknown) > > This gave a 99.9% cpu in top > > greg > > > > For what it is also worth, the email represented above was a 120K email (with attachments - plural) Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- the second was the large file --- Content-Type: image/jpg; name="vista.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
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 spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>> ___ >>> spamdyke-users mailing list >>> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >>> 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 >> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >> >> > > > ___ > spamdyke-users mailing list > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users > ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
I think I may have this one solved. I removed some code in version 4.0.5 that I didn't think was necessary any longer, but it turns out I wrote it for version 3.1.2 to prevent exactly this problem. Go figure. I've reverted that change and I'm running the test scripts now. If everything checks out I'll release 4.0.6 in the morning. -- 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 spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>> ___ >>> spamdyke-users mailing list >>> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >>> 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 >> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >> >> > > > ___ > spamdyke-users mailing list > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users > ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
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 > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users > > ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org 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 >>> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>> >>> >> >> ___ >> spamdyke-users mailing list >> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >> > ___ > spamdyke-users mailing list > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
You could try running a debug build of spamdyke (unstripped binary, remote the strip command from Makefile) and attach gdb or strace to a process (id) that is eating up all cpu. That should help Sam to find what the problem is. Note that debug builds have a larger memory footprint, so you might have to reduce the maximum number of spamdyke processes you can run (only matters if you're already maxing out your mem). -- Felix Am 14.10.2008 18:50 Uhr, Erald Troja schrieb: > 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 spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
Hi, forgot not all of you are software developers, so added some explanation of how to extract a useable backtrace from a running process with gdb. Am 15.10.2008 8:27 Uhr, Felix Buenemann schrieb: > You could try running a debug build of spamdyke (unstripped binary, > remote the strip command from Makefile) and attach gdb or strace to a > process (id) that is eating up all cpu. That should help Sam to find > what the problem is. Running gdb to trace the problem would look like this: # gdb /path/to/spamdyke (gdb) break (to interrupt execution, if it doesn't do so automatically) (gdb) bt (gdb) disass $eip-64 $eip+64 (gdb) info all-registers (gdb) kill (or 'c' to keep the process running) (gdb) q Then copy the output and mail it (to Sam only, shpuld be not so interesting for the list ;-) -- Felix > Note that debug builds have a larger memory footprint, so you might have > to reduce the maximum number of spamdyke processes you can run (only > matters if you're already maxing out your mem). > > -- Felix > > Am 14.10.2008 18:50 Uhr, Erald Troja schrieb: >> 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 spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
Yes, me also. Looks like this is one of the reasons, why Linux-tools are mostly developped for specific systems, when making RPM's. So Spamdyke 4.0.5 seems to be good for SuSE's, and maybe not on others? Just quick shot from me^^ :) Arne Metzger schrieb: > 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 >> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >> >> >> > ___ > spamdyke-users mailing list > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > 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 spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>> ___ >>> spamdyke-users mailing list >>> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>> >>> >> ___ >> spamdyke-users mailing list >> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >> > > ___ > spamdyke-users mailing list > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users > -- BLACKBIT neue Medien GmbH | BLACKBIT neue Werbung GmbH Technischer Support/ Hotline Ernst-Ruhstrat-Straße 6 - D-37079 Göttingen Geschäftsführer: Stefano Viani Registergericht
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
Hi Sam, Will that also solve the issue of smtp errors on the client-side? I couldn't find any log for those customers who had those errors, not even in the syslog. I did copy the error tho, if that may be of any help. Can reproduce that anytime too. And just to correct myself earlier, its not chunks of excessive output, but always the same line: EXCESSIVE(process_config_file()@configuration.c:3610): set configuration option full-log-dir from file /etc/spamdyke.conf, line 69: /path/to/spamdyke/full-log-dir This being the server's reply in the error message at client side. Arthur Citando Sam Clippinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I think I may have this one solved. I removed some code in version > 4.0.5 that I didn't think was necessary any longer, but it turns out I > wrote it for version 3.1.2 to prevent exactly this problem. Go figure. > > I've reverted that change and I'm running the test scripts now. If > everything checks out I'll release 4.0.6 in the morning. > > -- 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 > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users > > ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org 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 >>> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>> >>> >> >> >> ___ >> spamdyke-users mailing list >> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >> > ___ > spamdyke-users mailing list > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users > ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
One of my customers reported a problem like this, he could not send a message of 23MB. Outlook Express View the error code: 0x800ccc0f 2008/10/15 Arthur Girardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi Sam, > > Will that also solve the issue of smtp errors on the client-side? I > couldn't find any log for those customers who had those errors, not > even in the syslog. I did copy the error tho, if that may be of any > help. Can reproduce that anytime too. > > And just to correct myself earlier, its not chunks of excessive > output, but always the same line: > > EXCESSIVE(process_config_file()@configuration.c:3610): set > configuration option full-log-dir from file /etc/spamdyke.conf, line > 69: /path/to/spamdyke/full-log-dir > > This being the server's reply in the error message at client side. > > Arthur > > Citando Sam Clippinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> I think I may have this one solved. I removed some code in version >> 4.0.5 that I didn't think was necessary any longer, but it turns out I >> wrote it for version 3.1.2 to prevent exactly this problem. Go figure. >> >> I've reverted that change and I'm running the test scripts now. If >> everything checks out I'll release 4.0.6 in the morning. >> >> -- 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 >> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >> >> > ___ > spamdyke-users mailing list > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > 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 spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> spamdyke-users mailing list >>> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>> >> ___ >> spamdyke-users mailing list >> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >> > > > ___ > spamdyke-users mailing list > s
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
No, I couldn't reproduce that one. I can't think of any reason why spamdyke's debug/excessive output should ever be sent to the remote server. Could you send your configuration file and "run" file to me? It must be something specific to your setup. -- Sam Clippinger Arthur Girardi wrote: > Hi Sam, > > Will that also solve the issue of smtp errors on the client-side? I > couldn't find any log for those customers who had those errors, not > even in the syslog. I did copy the error tho, if that may be of any > help. Can reproduce that anytime too. > > And just to correct myself earlier, its not chunks of excessive > output, but always the same line: > > EXCESSIVE(process_config_file()@configuration.c:3610): set > configuration option full-log-dir from file /etc/spamdyke.conf, line > 69: /path/to/spamdyke/full-log-dir > > This being the server's reply in the error message at client side. > > Arthur > > Citando Sam Clippinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> I think I may have this one solved. I removed some code in version >> 4.0.5 that I didn't think was necessary any longer, but it turns out I >> wrote it for version 3.1.2 to prevent exactly this problem. Go figure. >> >> I've reverted that change and I'm running the test scripts now. If >> everything checks out I'll release 4.0.6 in the morning. >> >> -- 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 >> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >> >> >> > ___ > spamdyke-users mailing list > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > 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 spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>> ___ >>> spamdyke-users mailing list >>> spa
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
0x800CCC0F means CONNECTION_DROPPED http://support.microsoft.com/kb/813514/en-us In most cases my customers had a virus scanner dropping the connection. Paulo Henrique schrieb: One of my customers reported a problem like this, he could not send a message of 23MB. Outlook Express View the error code: 0x800ccc0f 2008/10/15 Arthur Girardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi Sam, Will that also solve the issue of smtp errors on the client-side? I couldn't find any log for those customers who had those errors, not even in the syslog. I did copy the error tho, if that may be of any help. Can reproduce that anytime too. And just to correct myself earlier, its not chunks of excessive output, but always the same line: EXCESSIVE(process_config_file()@configuration.c:3610): set configuration option full-log-dir from file /etc/spamdyke.conf, line 69: /path/to/spamdyke/full-log-dir This being the server's reply in the error message at client side. Arthur Citando Sam Clippinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I think I may have this one solved. I removed some code in version 4.0.5 that I didn't think was necessary any longer, but it turns out I wrote it for version 3.1.2 to prevent exactly this problem. Go figure. I've reverted that change and I'm running the test scripts now. If everything checks out I'll release 4.0.6 in the morning. -- 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 spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org 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 spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] High load avg
OK, I've got this one figured out. I'll keep testing tonight and (hopefully) release 4.0.6 in the morning. -- Sam Clippinger Sam Clippinger wrote: > No, I couldn't reproduce that one. I can't think of any reason why > spamdyke's debug/excessive output should ever be sent to the remote server. > > Could you send your configuration file and "run" file to me? It must be > something specific to your setup. > > -- Sam Clippinger > > Arthur Girardi wrote: > >> Hi Sam, >> >> Will that also solve the issue of smtp errors on the client-side? I >> couldn't find any log for those customers who had those errors, not >> even in the syslog. I did copy the error tho, if that may be of any >> help. Can reproduce that anytime too. >> >> And just to correct myself earlier, its not chunks of excessive >> output, but always the same line: >> >> EXCESSIVE(process_config_file()@configuration.c:3610): set >> configuration option full-log-dir from file /etc/spamdyke.conf, line >> 69: /path/to/spamdyke/full-log-dir >> >> This being the server's reply in the error message at client side. >> >> Arthur >> >> Citando Sam Clippinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> >> >>> I think I may have this one solved. I removed some code in version >>> 4.0.5 that I didn't think was necessary any longer, but it turns out I >>> wrote it for version 3.1.2 to prevent exactly this problem. Go figure. >>> >>> I've reverted that change and I'm running the test scripts now. If >>> everything checks out I'll release 4.0.6 in the morning. >>> >>> -- 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 >>> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ___ >> spamdyke-users mailing list >> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
