On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:27:43 +0200, Stevan Bajić wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:24:25 -0400, Julien Vehent wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:55:01 +0200, Stevan Bajić wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:34:34 -0400
>>> Julien Vehent wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
It's better now, it seems. It's be
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:24:25 -0400, Julien Vehent wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:55:01 +0200, Stevan Bajić wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:34:34 -0400
>> Julien Vehent wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> It's better now, it seems. It's been running for a few days
>>> without
>>> devouring memory:
>>>
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:55:01 +0200, Stevan Bajić wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:34:34 -0400
> Julien Vehent wrote:
>
> [...]
>>
>> It's better now, it seems. It's been running for a few days without
>> devouring memory:
>>
>> $ ps -ylC dspam
>> S UID PID PPID C PRI NI RSSSZ WCHA
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:34:34 -0400
Julien Vehent wrote:
[...]
>
> It's better now, it seems. It's been running for a few days without
> devouring memory:
>
> $ ps -ylC dspam
> S UID PID PPID C PRI NI RSSSZ WCHAN TTY TIME CMD
> S 999 18378 1 0 80 0 17264 45
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:41:52 +0200, Stevan Bajić wrote:
> This is strange. 1.1G of resistent memory for just 24 hours? And your
> DSPAM had 30.5 hours of processing time? Is that right?
>
> My MX1 is up for 12 days (yeah, yeah... changed kernel and had to
> reboot) and this are the numbers for DSP
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:53:02 -0400
Julien Vehent wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:36:10 -0400, Julien Vehent wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 08:28:17 -0500, k...@rice.edu wrote:
> >> Hi Julien,
> >>
> >> What version of dspam are you running? What version of PostgreSQL? A
> >> valgrind
> >> result
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:36:10 -0400, Julien Vehent wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 08:28:17 -0500, k...@rice.edu wrote:
>> Hi Julien,
>>
>> What version of dspam are you running? What version of PostgreSQL? A
>> valgrind
>> result would really help locate the problem as Stevan suggested.
>>
>
> Hi,
>
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 08:28:17 -0500, k...@rice.edu wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> What version of dspam are you running? What version of PostgreSQL? A
> valgrind
> result would really help locate the problem as Stevan suggested.
>
Hi,
I was running a GIT version from february. I just rebuild a fresh
On 08/06/11 14:30, Julien Vehent wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 07:42:42 +0200, Stevan Bajić wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 01:17:27 -0400, Julien Vehent wrote:
>>> Hey guys,
>>>
>> Hello Julien,
>>
>>
>>> It seems that my normally frugal DSPAM installation is eating up
>>> memory, up to 1.5GB on
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:03:22AM -0400, Julien Vehent wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:30:56 -0400, Julien Vehent wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 07:42:42 +0200, Stevan Bajić wrote:
> >> DSPAM is freeing memory when not used any more. Off course some
> >> things
> >> stay permanently in memory (
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:30:56 -0400, Julien Vehent wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 07:42:42 +0200, Stevan Bajić wrote:
>> DSPAM is freeing memory when not used any more. Off course some
>> things
>> stay permanently in memory (stuff like the configuration for
>> example).
>> But normally data/memor
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 07:42:42 +0200, Stevan Bajić wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 01:17:27 -0400, Julien Vehent wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>>
> Hello Julien,
>
>
>> It seems that my normally frugal DSPAM installation is eating up
>> memory, up to 1.5GB on my limited 2GB dedicated host.
>> I've been hunti
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 01:17:27 -0400, Julien Vehent wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
Hello Julien,
> It seems that my normally frugal DSPAM installation is eating up
> memory, up to 1.5GB on my limited 2GB dedicated host.
> I've been hunting down low swap space, postgresql buffer size and so
> on, until
Hey guys,
It seems that my normally frugal DSPAM installation is eating up
memory, up to 1.5GB on my limited 2GB dedicated host.
I've been hunting down low swap space, postgresql buffer size and so
on, until I realized it was dspam getting hungry during daily
maintenance.
Is there a way
14 matches
Mail list logo