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:
Dear Sir,
Some additional
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
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 2 idle
children, so when there were 3, it killed one
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
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Jose Luis
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
Jose Luis
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,
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 do
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:
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 states: BBI
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@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: spamd SIGCHLD
Jose
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]: prefork:
L == LuKreme krem...@kreme.com 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
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:
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 [12572]
14 matches
Mail list logo
