> 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 > spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BBII > spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BBS > spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BBSI > spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BI > spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BII > spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BIII > spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: BIS > spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: IB > spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: II > spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: III > spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: IIK > spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: IIS > spamd[10989]: prefork: child states: IIZ > spamd[10989]: spamd: handled cleanup of child > spamd[10989]: spamd: server successfully spawned child > > (based on a sort -u of the current maillog) If you do this over all week, you can safely restrict max number of spamd processes to 5. If you have enough of memory, you can use higher number but you surely don't need more then default values for max-spare (2) and min-spare (1) spamd processes -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. It's now safe to throw off your computer.
