Re: spamd SIGCHLD

2009-11-12 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "L" == LuKreme writes: L> I guess I just don't understand what these various notes mean. II? L> BB? BBSI? lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/SpamdForkScaling.pm, look for $statestr. I=idle, B=busy, K=killed, E=error, S=starting, Z="GOT_SIGCHLD" (probably zombie), ?=anything else. - J<

Re: spamd SIGCHLD

2009-11-12 Thread LuKreme
On 12-Nov-2009, at 10:12, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >> spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BB >> spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BBI >> spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BBII >> spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BBS >> spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BBSI >> spamd[10989]:

RE: spamd SIGCHLD

2009-11-12 Thread David B Funk
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote: > > Thanks Bowie, > > It would be good idea to increase the maximum amount of SPARE? > > Thanks > > Jose Luis > > > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:30:58 -0500 > > From: bowie_bai...@buc.com > > To: users@s

Re: spamd SIGCHLD

2009-11-12 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> On 12-Nov-2009, at 09:27, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > Ops, "child" of course. Unless you need many spamd processes, you don't need > > many spare spamd's. On 12.11.09 09:58, LuKreme wrote: > I see things like: > > spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BB > spamd[10989]: prefork: child

Re: spamd SIGCHLD

2009-11-12 Thread LuKreme
On 12-Nov-2009, at 09:27, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > Ops, "child" of course. Unless you need many spamd processes, you don't need > many spare spamd's. I see things like: spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BB spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BBI spamd[10989]: prefork: child states:

Re: spamd SIGCHLD

2009-11-12 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> On 12.11.09 10:09, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote: > > I have increased the maximum amount of SPARE to 5 (--max-spare=5) and I'm > > monitoring the behavior of the RAM and SWAP. On 12.11.09 16:34, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > grep your spamd log for 'shild' to have some hints how much of childs

Re: spamd SIGCHLD

2009-11-12 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 12.11.09 10:09, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote: > I have increased the maximum amount of SPARE to 5 (--max-spare=5) and I'm > monitoring the behavior of the RAM and SWAP. grep your spamd log for 'shild' to have some hints how much of childs do you need. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.

RE: spamd SIGCHLD

2009-11-12 Thread Jose Luis Marin Perez
Dear Bowie, I have increased the maximum amount of SPARE to 5 (--max-spare=5) and I'm monitoring the behavior of the RAM and SWAP. Thanks Jose Luis > Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:42:36 -0500 > From: bowie_bai...@buc.com > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject:

RE: spamd SIGCHLD

2009-11-12 Thread Jose Luis Marin Perez
Dear John, Thanks, now I have the concept more clear about this. Jose Luis I'm more clear about this. > Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:39:08 -0800 > From: jhar...@impsec.org > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > CC: bowie_bai...@buc.com > Subject: RE: spamd SIGCHLD > >

Re: spamd SIGCHLD

2009-11-12 Thread Bowie Bailey
Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:30:58 -0500 > > From: bowie_bai...@buc.com > > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > > Subject: Re: spamd SIGCHLD > > > > > > This is just the normal child cleanup. You have set a maximum of

RE: spamd SIGCHLD

2009-11-12 Thread John Hardin
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote: It would be good idea to increase the maximum amount of SPARE? Not just to make the SIGCHLD warnings go away. The decision is based on your email volume and available resources (CPU, RAM, etc.) Take a look at your memory allocation and swap

RE: spamd SIGCHLD

2009-11-12 Thread Jose Luis Marin Perez
Thanks Bowie, It would be good idea to increase the maximum amount of SPARE? Thanks Jose Luis > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:30:58 -0500 > From: bowie_bai...@buc.com > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: spamd SIGCHLD > > Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote: > >

Re: spamd SIGCHLD

2009-11-11 Thread Bowie Bailey
Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote: > Dear Sir, > > Some additional data. > > I am running debugging and got these messages: > > @40004afb1ab22375c434 [12572] info: prefork: child states: III > @40004afb1ab22375d7bc [12572] dbg: prefork: child 13018: entering > state 3 > @40004afb1ab22375e75c

RE: spamd SIGCHLD

2009-11-11 Thread Jose Luis Marin Perez
Dear Sir, Some additional data. I am running debugging and got these messages: @40004afb1ab22375c434 [12572] info: prefork: child states: III @40004afb1ab22375d7bc [12572] dbg: prefork: child 13018: entering state 3 @40004afb1ab22375e75c [12572] dbg: prefork: new lowest idle kid: