If this happens again, would you mind using strace to see where spamdyke is stuck? It would be very helpful to know as much as possible so I can try to figure out what's happening.
-- Sam Clipipnger On 2/26/10 1:23 AM, Andreas Galatis wrote: > Hi Hans, > I did not receive your answer, just got it from the archive now. > > you're right, the server was unstable/slow and i had hanging SpamDyke > processes. > Since DNS-resolver is ok, I have a stable server and no hanging processes. > Shure, SpamDyke should end processes, even when the resolver doesn't respond > in time, but both problems where solved after reconfiguring DNS-cache. > > Andreas > > >> I assuming that with "the same problem" you are referring to a >> slow/unstable server, and not the hanging SpamDyke processes? >> No matter what the problem is, I don't think there should be >> SpamDyke processes hanging around. >> >> Hans >> > >> Hi Hans, >> >> I had the same problem in the past and ended up that my real problem was >> the dns-resolver. >> With a working dnscache all my problems with where gone. >> Jm2c >> >> Andreas >> >> Am Thursday 25 February 2010 11:47:01 schrieb Hans F. Nordhaug: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> Today we turned of Spamdyke to see if it makes our e-mail server more >>> stable. The server is running a plain, up-to-date CentOS 5.3 with >>> SpamDyke 4.0.10 and Qmail from Qmailtoaster/Qmailtoaster Plus. >>> >>> What we are seeing is 100+ hanging Spamdyke processing and >>> corresponding defunct qmail-smtpd child processes. We haven't >>> monitored the number of hanging processes, but when we get reports >>> from our users about problems with slow e-mail sending/receiving that >>> is what we find. Killing these hanging Spamdyke processes makes the >>> e-mail speed-up. We do monitor the actual Qmal local/remote queue and >>> it is less than 20 so the problem seems to be the connections in some >>> way. It's all very weird because we shouldn't be near the max number >>> of sockets, right? It might all be coincidences, but we have >>> experienced the problem (and the fix) three times so far in 2010. >>> >>> Anyway, why aren't these Spamdyke processes stopping. (The time-out is >>> 180 seconds and these processes are many hours/days old.) >>> >>> Thanks for any input. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Hans >>> >>> PS! I might turn Spamdyke on again for a specific domain (and/or port) if >>> you want to test it or want me to run some tests. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> spamdyke-users mailing list >>> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> spamdyke-users mailing list >> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >> > > _______________________________________________ > spamdyke-users mailing list > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users > _______________________________________________ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
