Re: Memory problems with SA 3.0.1?

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


rbartlett@digitalphx.com writes:
> Are there any memory problems for SA version 3.0.1? We recently upgraded
> to 2 gigs of memory on the server and SA just gobbled up the memory. We
> dip down to under 20 megs here and there and 30-40 megs the rest of the
> time. I lowered the number of processes from 15 to 10 and according to top
> the RSS is reading at least 50 megs per process.
> 
> When I stop and start SA I obviously gain back a lot of memory, but soon
> goes back down. Im running this on Fedora Core 2 with qmail, I average
> 25-35 emails a minute with spikes to 300 emails a minute. I just dont know
> if SA is suppose to take up that much memory.
> 
> Any suggestions on what to look for? Or is there like a memory leak in
> this version?

couple of things:

- - recent versions of linux (most 2.4.x kernels in Fedora Core, and all
  2.6.* kernels) report "shared" incorrectly in ps and top output, only
  counting the pages loaded from shared libs instead of the pages actually
  being shared by the kernel.  In fact, quite a bit more memory is being
  shared.  check list archives for details.

- - SpamAssassin 3.1.0 will include an Apache-style preforking system, which
  is more sensible in its use of RAM -- it'll only start a minimum number
  of processes, attempts to keep a small number of those procs active to
  minimize paging, and kills off servers that aren't being used.

In the meantime, I'd suggest lowering the number of spamd processes being
used.

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFB7V0eMJF5cimLx9ARAlThAKCSnhA0vCzLIPEoG/vptvbIew5seQCgkUgD
/VRM5IEzl1oxejf0Jon6O20=
=kb/0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----