Howdy.
Following up on this thread... My spamd children don't seem to be
sharing much memory with their parents:
PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME CPU
COMMAND
14692 alias 17 0 40620 34M 2092 S 8.3 0.7 24:24 1 spamd
(this is an example spamd child)
yep -- various versions of the Linux kernel do not measure shared
memory in the same way.
vanilla 2.4.18/19: reports shared correctly
2.4.x with Red Hat patches: incorrect
2.6.x: incorrect
Is there any way to get at the actual amount of shared memory? Perhaps
comparing the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jason Parsons writes:
yep -- various versions of the Linux kernel do not measure shared
memory in the same way.
vanilla 2.4.18/19: reports shared correctly
2.4.x with Red Hat patches: incorrect
2.6.x: incorrect
Is there any
I use ok_locales es en
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 22:03:21 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Glomph Black
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the default /usr/share/spamassasin/10_misc.cf file, I have
ok_locales all
ok_languagesall
Nothing related in the personalized files in
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Jon Trulson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:53:30AM -0600, Jon Trulson wrote:
FWIW, in our case a child would go to 320MB and just stay there
until the child was terminated (even after finishing a message). We do
use AWL and
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 12:25:45PM -0500, Michael Parker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:22:42AM -0700, Morris Jones wrote:
I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happening
In the default /usr/share/spamassasin/10_misc.cf file, I have
ok_locales all
ok_languagesall
Nothing related in the personalized files in /etc/mail/spamassassin, or
elsewhere.
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 12:25:45PM -0500, Michael
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Jeff Tucker wrote:
I captured an exact copy of one of the messages that was being scanned
when this happened.
[ ... ]
Rescanning the same message by calling spamc didn't cause the
problem. The scan completed in just a couple of seconds.
I did exactly the same
Michael Parker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 12:25:45PM -0500, Michael Parker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:22:42AM -0700, Morris Jones wrote:
I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happening on a
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:19:17AM -0300, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
In my specific case, the ponit isn't only woth the big memory usage
jumps, but with SA keeping the memory, and never releasing it.
Highwater marks, common in most perl applicatios, don't
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:53:30AM -0600, Jon Trulson wrote:
FWIW, in our case a child would go to 320MB and just stay there
until the child was terminated (even after finishing a message). We do
use AWL and bayes.
Is it possible to try and find the msgs that was being scanned at
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:53:30AM -0600, Jon Trulson wrote:
FWIW, in our case a child would go to 320MB and just stay there
until the child was terminated (even after finishing a message). We do
use AWL and bayes.
Is it possible to try and find the
I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happening on a whitelist
or bayes database maintenance event of some sort.
It seems a solution here might be to have a spamd child that notices it
needs to to maintenance
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 05:30:32PM -0700, Loren Wilton wrote:
It seems a solution here might be to have a spamd child that notices it
needs to to maintenance should either pass that off to another child created
specifically for that purpose, or else die after performing the maintenance
Yeah, I
From: Loren Wilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 7:42 AM
Any chance in going back to something that actually worked? I tried
running a
2.64 version of spamd, but got a mountain of bayes-related errors.
There is an option to only run a single child, which is claimed to be
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:25:45 -0500, Michael Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:22:42AM -0700, Morris Jones wrote:
I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happening on a whitelist
or
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:19:17AM -0300, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
jumps, but with SA keeping the memory, and never releasing it.
Well, there's really no way to do that at the application level -- it's up to
the OS. Typically what happens is:
- process wants X memory
- process gets X memory
Good enough argument, but the new version has killed off two machines
that have successfully run SA/spamd with no problems since Jan 2002.
The machines leak into oblivion, and Something Bad happens (major daemons killed
off, etc.).
There is definitely some kind of memory resource problem (if not
Any chance in going back to something that actually worked? I tried
running a
2.64 version of spamd, but got a mountain of bayes-related errors.
There is an option to only run a single child, which is claimed to be
equivalent to the 2.6x implementation. I don't recall the option
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
Well, it's not running a single child, it's that each child should
only run 1 message before dying. It's right in the spamd docs, but
--max-conn-per-child=1 is what you're looking for.
I set mine to --max-conn-per-child=10 as a compromise, and it's
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:22:42AM -0700, Morris Jones wrote:
I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happening on a whitelist
or bayes database maintenance event of some sort.
For folks that are seeing huge
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:22:42AM -0700, Morris Jones wrote:
I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happening on a whitelist
or bayes database maintenance event
Morris Jones wrote on Tue, 5 Oct 2004 10:22:42 -0700 (PDT):
I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message.
This can happen sometimes (rarely) with 2.6x as well! I have already seen
900 MB spamds.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet
23 matches
Mail list logo
