Pretty much answered in my following mail. In general each child might us
30-60mb under NORMAL circumstances, so the amount of memory on your
machine
will determine the upper limit for number of children.
so 8 would be max on a 512meg system (what I have). I still have free ram
after firing
> is it better to run five children with 20 connections each, or 20 children
with five connections each?
Pretty much answered in my following mail. In general each child might us
30-60mb under NORMAL circumstances, so the amount of memory on your machine
will determine the upper limit for number
> so you are running 30 per child and 6 children? 180 total. how many
messages a day are you handling. I upped my children from 5 to 15 thinking
that would help but it hasn't. I was thinking of taken connections down to
5 or 6 on 15 children. maybe I have it backwards? I don't have anything
e
is it better to run five children with 20 connections each, or 20 children
with five connections each?
Frank M. CookAssociation Computer Services, Inc.http://www.acsplus.com
Most strange. Could you give us the listing frop top or the like?
The normal case, as you are probably aware, is that the children get fat
(use a lot of memory) and your system goes into thraashing.
This sounds like you have some other problem.
Are you using awl (it is on by default in 3.x) or
Herb Martin wrote:
>> When people ask why I haven't upgraded from 2.64 yet... I'm waiting
>> until a week goes by without a new thread about runaway / way-slow /
>> resource-eating SA 3.0.X processes! :-)
>>
>
> I suspect your wait is over 3.10 (due any day now) + 1 week
> should make you happy.
My setup is as follows:
FreeBSD 4.10, SpamAssassin 3.0.4, Perl 5.8
Using Bayes and a pile 'o SARE rules.
It scanned 34484 messages last night and the only time we see lags is when
the bayes database is expiring.
The startup script is as follows:
/usr/local/bin/spamd --max-children=6 --max-c
> > When people ask why I haven't upgraded from 2.64 yet... I'm waiting
> > until a week goes by without a new thread about runaway /
> way-slow /
> > resource-eating SA 3.0.X processes! :-)
> >
I suspect your wait is over 3.10 (due any day now) + 1 week
should make you happy.
Improved thread
, Datahost
www.datahost.com
- Original Message -
From: "Frank M. Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mike Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 08:21
Subject: Re: Runaway processes
so you are running 30 per child and 6 children? 180 total. how
so you are running 30 per child and 6 children? 180 total. how
many messages a day are you handling. I upped my children from 5 to 15
thinking that would help but it hasn't. I was thinking of taken
connections down to 5 or 6 on 15 children. maybe I have it
backwards? I don't have anyth
Pierre Thomson wrote:
I'm running SA 3.0.4 on OpenBSD with Perl 5.8.6 & Exim V4.52.
I'm noticing that SA seems to have a big problem with child
processes just "running away", never terminating and eating CPU.
My mailservers can't cope, and I'm looking at having to switch
off SA. (Not something
> I'm running SA 3.0.4 on OpenBSD with Perl 5.8.6 & Exim V4.52.
>
> I'm noticing that SA seems to have a big problem with child
> processes just "running away", never terminating and eating CPU.
>
> My mailservers can't cope, and I'm looking at having to switch
> off SA. (Not something I really wan
I've been fighting a problem which may turn out to be similar. my
spamassassin just starts falling behind and runaway threads could be the
cause. I'm going to try adjusting --max connections per child (check docs
for exact syntax). the default is 200. maybe someone else will jump in
with a
13 matches
Mail list logo
