You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by David W Smith <dw...@well.ox.ac.uk> on 2005/06/01 12:33:13 UTC
possible memory memory with SA 3.0.3 under Debian Linux
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone had noticed a possible memory leak with SA 3.0.3
(under Linux/Debian)?
I upgraded SA from 3.0.2 to 3.0.3 on a Debian server about 7 days ago and today
twice the load sky-rocketed followed by the server seizing up. In the logs were
lots of 'kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed' entries.
On monitoring the swap space with 'watch -n 5 -d free' the swap space free was
disappearing like water through a sieve. When SA 3.0.3 was switched off the
memory leak ceased, only to start again when SA was re-enabled.
So I reverted to SA 3.0.2 and the memory leak ceased rapidly plus the load on
the server normalized.
The SA 3.0.3 install had both the URIDNSBL and the SPF module enabled (the
enabling of the latter was new (on my server) to the 3.0.3 install and the
memory leak continued with and without this module enabled), as has the 3.0.2
install.
Regards,
David Smith
Systems Administrator
University of Oxford
Re: possible memory memory with SA 3.0.3 under Debian Linux
Posted by Thomas Jacob <ja...@internet24.de>.
> Now we changed from Gentoo based systems (which did not use
> sa > 3.02) to Debian based systems (with 3.03 initially), still using
> the same version/config of exim/exiscan. When used in combination with
> Spamassassin 3.03, we got the said memory problems. Since we downgraded
> to 3.02 yesterday, the problems have disappeared.
Correction, this is not in fact true. The problems did occur again
also with 3.02 both on non-Debian systems and on Debian systems
overnight, but have stopped now, so they seem to be more related to
oversized email, not to a spamassassin problem.... sorry about that.
Re: possible memory memory with SA 3.0.3 under Debian Linux
Posted by Thomas Jacob <ja...@internet24.de>.
> Are you limiting the size of msgs that exim is sending to spamd to scan?
>
> For folks using Exim, please see Justin's msg to the users list the
> other day:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200505.mbox/%3c20050527194752.D88D2591A02@radish.jmason.org%3e
>
> You really need to be limiting the msgs you send to spamd and it
> appears that the default Exim install does not do this.
Thanks for that advice, we'll be definitely trying that out, but this
does not
appear to fit our experience. We've been using this for at least a year
now, with the exact same exim/exiscan-setup and and configuration, only
with different versions of spamassassin.
Now we changed from Gentoo based systems (which did not use
sa > 3.02) to Debian based systems (with 3.03 initially), still using
the same version/config of exim/exiscan. When used in combination with
Spamassassin 3.03, we got the said memory problems. Since we downgraded
to 3.02 yesterday, the problems have disappeared.
--
_______________________________
Thomas Jacob
-Softwareentwickler-
IMS Internet-Media-Service GmbH
Bärensteiner Straße 7
01277 Dresden
Fon: +49 351 2112033
Fax: +49 351 2112020
Email: jacob@internet24.de
Pungenday
7th of Confusion, 3171
Re: possible memory memory with SA 3.0.3 under Debian Linux
Posted by Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David W Smith wrote:
>> --- Spamd is called via an '/etc/init.d' startup script. The
>> server has 2Gb RAM. I'm not sure if I was seeing a memory leak or
>> a highwater mark. I just recall watching the 'free' column of the
>> Swap output of 'watch -n 5 -d free' drop off to about 0.9 Gb in
>> less than a minute before I stopped SA. Usually free swap doesn't
>> fall below about 1.9Gb on the server. This server from inception
>> has successfully run SA (started with v3.0.1), Exim 4, Sophie
>> 3.4rc2, Mailman 2.1.5, Squirrelmail 1.4.x, Apache 2.x, and NIS as
>> the main applications.
Are you limiting the size of msgs that exim is sending to spamd to scan?
For folks using Exim, please see Justin's msg to the users list the
other day:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200505.mbox/%3c20050527194752.D88D2591A02@radish.jmason.org%3e
You really need to be limiting the msgs you send to spamd and it
appears that the default Exim install does not do this.
Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCne7PG4km+uS4gOIRAu2zAJ46JL/JiDikWxjba18KSdpOLSzgCQCdFAX/
KPW2BlByMpgJxKDoSSauj1o=
=CLPS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: possible memory memory with SA 3.0.3 under Debian Linux
Posted by David W Smith <dw...@well.ox.ac.uk>.
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Michael Parker wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> David W Smith wrote:
>
>> So I reverted to SA 3.0.2 and the memory leak ceased rapidly plus
>> the load on the server normalized.
>>
>> The SA 3.0.3 install had both the URIDNSBL and the SPF module
>> enabled (the enabling of the latter was new (on my server) to the
>> 3.0.3 install and the memory leak continued with and without this
>> module enabled), as has the 3.0.2 install.
>
> These two comments seem to contradict, did reverting to 3.0.2 help or
> not? 3.0.3 removed a large memory issue with autowhitelist db files,
> but otherwise 3.0.3 contained VERY SMALL changes.
--- Yes it did help, as my email said "I reverted to SA 3.0.2 and the
memory leak ceased rapidly". So I'm running SA 3.0.2 with the URIDNSBL and
the SPF modules enabled.
> Also, how are you calling SA? Are you sure it is a memory leak and
> not just a highwater mark? What sort of machine (memory wise) are you
> running SA on and how many children are you starting? Is the machine
> doing anything else?
--- Spamd is called via an '/etc/init.d' startup script. The server has
2Gb RAM. I'm not sure if I was seeing a memory leak or a highwater mark.
I just recall watching the 'free' column of the Swap output of 'watch -n
5 -d free' drop off to about 0.9 Gb in less than a minute before I
stopped SA. Usually free swap doesn't fall below about 1.9Gb on the
server. This server from inception has successfully run SA (started with
v3.0.1), Exim 4, Sophie 3.4rc2, Mailman 2.1.5, Squirrelmail 1.4.x, Apache
2.x, and NIS as the main applications.
Regards,
David Smith
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFCndL4G4km+uS4gOIRAsjXAJsGyOJnwoyMTgt9SOZpDtDEbrylRACdF1LB
> 77mulc23GzAgHdsuhBhsrQM=
> =NiQ8
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Re: possible memory memory with SA 3.0.3 under Debian Linux
Posted by Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David W Smith wrote:
> So I reverted to SA 3.0.2 and the memory leak ceased rapidly plus
> the load on the server normalized.
>
> The SA 3.0.3 install had both the URIDNSBL and the SPF module
> enabled (the enabling of the latter was new (on my server) to the
> 3.0.3 install and the memory leak continued with and without this
> module enabled), as has the 3.0.2 install.
These two comments seem to contradict, did reverting to 3.0.2 help or
not? 3.0.3 removed a large memory issue with autowhitelist db files,
but otherwise 3.0.3 contained VERY SMALL changes.
Also, how are you calling SA? Are you sure it is a memory leak and
not just a highwater mark? What sort of machine (memory wise) are you
running SA on and how many children are you starting? Is the machine
doing anything else?
Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCndL4G4km+uS4gOIRAsjXAJsGyOJnwoyMTgt9SOZpDtDEbrylRACdF1LB
77mulc23GzAgHdsuhBhsrQM=
=NiQ8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----