> So, is there anyone with an idea on how improve memory efficiency here?
I used to use spamassassin, but now I outsource my spam and virus filtering.
Services like mailfoundry and postini do excellent work, they spend all
their waking hours trying to improve spam filtering accuracy. I personally
On Tuesday 04 May 2010 23:51:24 Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Back when we were running Sarge, we were able to run clamav,
> spamassassin and amavis, together with apache, mysql and an ftp server,
> in just 200MB RAM and same as swap.
>
> Today, running Lenny, top shows us some crazy results:
>
On Wed, 05 May 2010 12:51:24 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Today, running Lenny, top shows us some crazy results:
>
> clamav: 156 MB
> amavisd-new: 80 MB per process (running 3 processes is the minimum)
> spamd: 105 MB per process (same remark)
>
> That makes the total amount of RAM needed to r
> Thomas Goirand :
>Today, running Lenny, top shows us some crazy results:
>clamav: 156 MB
>amavisd-new: 80 MB per process (running 3 processes is the minimum)
>spamd: 105 MB per process (same remark)
>That makes the total amount of RAM needed to run these 3 up to
>something like 700 MB, which mak
Thomas Goirand put forth on 5/4/2010 11:51 PM:
> Hi,
>
> Back when we were running Sarge, we were able to run clamav,
> spamassassin and amavis, together with apache, mysql and an ftp server,
> in just 200MB RAM and same as swap.
>
> Today, running Lenny, top shows us some crazy results:
>
> cla
Hi,
Back when we were running Sarge, we were able to run clamav,
spamassassin and amavis, together with apache, mysql and an ftp server,
in just 200MB RAM and same as swap.
Today, running Lenny, top shows us some crazy results:
clamav: 156 MB
amavisd-new: 80 MB per process (running 3 processes i
6 matches
Mail list logo
