memory footprint

Soeren Gerlach so-mlist-alias at
Sat Feb 15 21:43:27 GMT 2003

> > >Is there any way to slim mailscanner down, especially the parent
> > > process?
> >
> > As it is virtually all swapped out, what's the point?
> It's there, needlessly consuming system resources.
> As I understand it the mailscanner perl program first "uses" all the
> Modules it will ever need and then forks. I thought about a scenario where
> the parent process first forks and then the children load all the modules
> they require for their work. Wouldn't that make the parent a lot more
> lightweight?

As far as I can see, MailScanner is supposed to be optimized on speed not on 
the memory footprint. There is a certain tradeoff between those two and you 
just have to set the flag somewhere. Loading the modules on demand would 
cause a certain performance impact. And although most of the memory is shared 
memory at all (modules get used by all the child processes) I suppose memory 
isn't quite a big problem even for greater mail gateways running M.S.

Soeren Gerlach

Diese Nachricht wurde auf Viren und andere gefaehrliche Inhalte untersucht

More information about the MailScanner mailing list