> Hello list! > I'm playing with options min-spare,max-spare,min-children and > max-children, I'd like to save memory on my vps. So I'd like to have one > children awaiting for connection from MTA, when MTA receives more emials > in short time I'd like SA to spawn more children (max-children=6). I > thinks it's enough to have zero (or one) spare children in my case. > I'm starting spamd with such parameters: > ... --min-spare=0 --max-spare=1 -m 6 > I'm expecting I can check 6 emails in the same time because option "-m > 6" suggests that six children should be spawned. > Ok, so I've got 2 proceessess: > # pgrep -fc spamd > 2 > It's ok as for now. Now I'm starting scanning 6 mails at one time: > > # (for x in $(seq 1 6); do spamc -c </tmp/q1TQY7Z-4358 >/dev/null & > done) ; pgrep -fc spamd ; sleep 1; pgrep -fc spamd;sleep 1;pgrep -fc spamd > 2 > 2 > 2 > Hmm, still I've got 2 processes (parent+one child). > > Let me change start option for spamd: > ... --min-spare=0 --max-spare=3 -m 6 > # pgrep -fc spamd > 4 > (How much time of innactivity is needed to kill spare, unused child?). > And I'm launching one-liner: > # (for x in $(seq 1 6); do spamc -c </tmp/q1TQY7Z-4358 >/dev/null & > done) ; pgrep -fc spamd ; sleep 1; pgrep -fc spamd;sleep 1;pgrep -fc > spamd > 4 > 4 > 4 > So for me it looks like max-spare limits max number of children, me > seems it's not desired behavior. > In log I can find: > spamd[21140]: prefork: child states: BBB > So spamd really didn't spawn more childs. > > Am I doing something wrong?
Just thought I'd ask... You did restart SA after you made the changes?
