You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Balzi Andrea <an...@arthis.it> on 2006/10/10 18:02:36 UTC
use of ram after upgrade
Hi
I have upgraded my spamassassin to version 3.1.7 and after the restart
of the process I have saw an increment of the use of the ram.
I use the default rules of the spamassassin and the following rules:
53K Apr 20 11:00 70_sare_adult.cf
3.8K Jun 2 2005 70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf
24K Oct 5 2005 70_sare_evilnum0.cf
1.6K Jun 2 2005 70_sare_evilnum1.cf
6.9K Jun 2 2005 70_sare_evilnum2.cf
184K Dec 27 2005 70_sare_genlsubj.cf
32K Dec 27 2005 70_sare_genlsubj_eng.cf
376K Oct 30 2005 70_sare_header.cf
8.0K May 21 22:00 70_sare_header_eng.cf
4.4K Jun 2 2005 70_sare_highrisk.cf
105K Jun 4 07:00 70_sare_html.cf
39K Jun 4 07:00 70_sare_html4.cf
3.1K Jun 4 07:00 70_sare_html_eng.cf
155K Oct 1 2005 70_sare_obfu.cf
6.0K Oct 1 2005 70_sare_obfu2.cf
14K Oct 1 2005 70_sare_obfu3.cf
13K Dec 27 2005 70_sare_oem.cf
18K Dec 12 2005 70_sare_random.cf
96K May 28 05:00 70_sare_specific.cf
20K Jul 25 18:00 70_sare_spoof.cf
54K Sep 22 23:00 70_sare_stocks.cf
25K Nov 12 2005 70_sare_unsub.cf
18K Oct 5 2005 70_sare_uri0.cf
24K Oct 11 2005 70_sare_uri1.cf
8.4K Oct 5 2005 70_sare_uri3.cf
5.0K Oct 5 2005 70_sare_uri_eng.cf
49K May 16 05:00 70_sare_whitelist.cf
8.8K Sep 25 19:00 70_sc_top200.cf
104K Jul 31 00:50 70_zmi_german.cf
13K Jun 2 2005 72_sare_bml_post25x.cf
16K May 16 05:00 72_sare_redirect_post3.0.0.cf
79K Sep 25 19:00 88_FVGT_body.cf
50K Aug 27 12:34 88_FVGT_headers.cf
16K Apr 25 17:00 88_FVGT_rawbody.cf
57K Jul 31 20:00 88_FVGT_subject.cf
18K Jul 6 18:00 88_FVGT_uri.cf
55K Jun 2 2005 99_FVGT_Tripwire.cf
12K Jun 2 2005 99_FVGT_meta.cf
776 Sep 29 12:09 99_blacklist_arthis.cf
26K Sep 14 14:19 99_jam.cf
2.0K Sep 14 15:31 99_jam_virus.cf
10K Jun 2 2005 99_sare_fraud_post25x.cf
9.7K Oct 9 08:15 99_whitelist_arthis.cf
5.3K Oct 4 21:54 FuzzyOcr.cf
415 Oct 3 10:15 FuzzyOcr.words
4.7M Oct 10 03:00 blacklist-uri.cf
108K Dec 15 2005 bogus-virus-warnings.cf
23K Jun 2 2005 chickenpox.cf
4.6K Aug 6 03:57 imageinfo.cf
946 Sep 15 07:50 init.pre
1.5K Oct 1 10:39 local.cf
2.2K Sep 21 11:26 mime_validate.cf
4.8K May 25 2004 random.cf
55K Jun 2 2005 tripwire.cf
2.3K Oct 3 10:30 v310.pre
806 Sep 15 09:29 v312.pre
3.8K Jun 2 2005 weeds.cf
Bellow I've cut a part of top command on my server.
Tasks: 93 total, 1 running, 91 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
Cpu0 : 0.0% user, 0.3% system, 6.0% nice, 93.7% idle
Cpu1 : 0.0% user, 0.0% system, 0.0% nice, 100.0% idle
Cpu2 : 0.3% user, 1.3% system, 12.6% nice, 85.8% idle
Cpu3 : 0.3% user, 0.7% system, 4.3% nice, 94.7% idle
Mem: 6206432k total, 1103800k used, 5102632k free, 108804k buffers
Swap: 2000084k total, 7856k used, 1992228k free, 65000k cached
PID PPID PR NI S #C RES SHR SWAP TIME COMMAND
12411 7632 15 10 S 0 335m 75m 0 0:10 spamd child
7719 7632 15 10 S 0 180m 76m 0 0:38 spamd child
14332 7632 15 10 S 0 173m 77m 0 0:33 spamd child
14365 7632 15 10 S 1 161m 78m 0 0:19 spamd child
14665 7632 17 10 D 3 153m 78m 0 0:02 spamd child
14684 7632 14 10 S 0 150m 95m 0 0:00 spamd child
7632 1 15 10 S 3 149m 95m 0 0:12 /usr/sbin/spamd
It's a rules problem?
Andrea
RE: use of ram after upgrade
Posted by R Lists06 <li...@abbacomm.net>.
> From: Balzi Andrea
> <snippers>
> I've try it, but now I've the follow use:
>
> Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
> Cpu0 : 0.0% user, 1.3% system, 1.7% nice, 97.0% idle
> Cpu1 : 0.0% user, 1.3% system, 0.0% nice, 98.7% idle
> Cpu2 : 0.0% user, 0.0% system, 1.3% nice, 98.7% idle
> Cpu3 : 0.0% user, 0.0% system, 98.7% nice, 1.3% idle
> Mem: 6206432k total, 909444k used, 5296988k free, 117224k buffers
> Swap: 2000084k total, 7856k used, 1992228k free, 70724k cached
>
> PID PPID PR NI S #C RES SHR SWAP TIME COMMAND
> 15404 15386 15 10 S 1 354m 33m 0 5:29 spamd child
> 15405 15386 19 10 R 2 176m 34m 0 4:33 spamd child
> 15626 15386 14 10 S 0 88m 36m 0 0:22 spamd child
> 15645 15386 15 10 S 3 85m 36m 0 0:07 spamd child
> 15386 1 15 10 S 2 73m 36m 0 0:03 /usr/sbin/spamd
>
My engineers and I have determined that since this is a 4 way processor box
(hopefully with a lot of RAM and processor speed), that you should box it
up and send it to us for extended testing...
...probably only a year or two and we will fix it and get it right back you
you...
if you cannot send this one, another 4 proc or 8 proc box will do.
;->
Thanks and kind regards!
- rh
--
Robert - Abba Communications
Computer & Internet Services
(509) 624-7159 - www.abbacomm.net
RE: use of ram after upgrade
Posted by Balzi Andrea <an...@arthis.it>.
I've try it, but now I've the follow use:
Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu0 : 0.0% user, 1.3% system, 1.7% nice, 97.0% idle
Cpu1 : 0.0% user, 1.3% system, 0.0% nice, 98.7% idle
Cpu2 : 0.0% user, 0.0% system, 1.3% nice, 98.7% idle
Cpu3 : 0.0% user, 0.0% system, 98.7% nice, 1.3% idle
Mem: 6206432k total, 909444k used, 5296988k free, 117224k buffers
Swap: 2000084k total, 7856k used, 1992228k free, 70724k cached
PID PPID PR NI S #C RES SHR SWAP TIME COMMAND
15404 15386 15 10 S 1 354m 33m 0 5:29 spamd child
15405 15386 19 10 R 2 176m 34m 0 4:33 spamd child
15626 15386 14 10 S 0 88m 36m 0 0:22 spamd child
15645 15386 15 10 S 3 85m 36m 0 0:07 spamd child
15386 1 15 10 S 2 73m 36m 0 0:03 /usr/sbin/spamd
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Pooser [mailto:dave-sa@pooserville.com]
> Sent: martedì 10 ottobre 2006 18.09
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: use of ram after upgrade
>
> > 4.7M Oct 10 03:00 blacklist-uri.cf
>
> Remove this and use URI blacklists instead. Notice how this
> rule's size is orders of magnitude greater than any of the
> others you listed? Same goes for its RAM footprint.
> --
> Dave Pooser
> Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com
> "...Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of
> arriving safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece, but
> to slide across the finish line broadside, thoroughly used
> up, worn out, leaking oil, and shouting GERONIMO!!!" -- Bill McKenna
>
>
>
Re: use of ram after upgrade
Posted by Dave Pooser <da...@pooserville.com>.
> 4.7M Oct 10 03:00 blacklist-uri.cf
Remove this and use URI blacklists instead. Notice how this rule's size is
orders of magnitude greater than any of the others you listed? Same goes for
its RAM footprint.
--
Dave Pooser
Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com
"...Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece, but to slide across the
finish line broadside, thoroughly used up, worn out, leaking oil, and
shouting GERONIMO!!!" -- Bill McKenna