MailScanner, huge bayes_toks, out-of-mem problem
waldner at WALDNER.PRIV.AT
Tue Nov 25 10:17:55 GMT 2003
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:49:07 GMT, Martin Hepworth writes:
>> Ok, bayes_toks is _huge_, ~ 82M, but what I'm trying to understand is:
>> - how does MailScanner (SA?) determine which process will read in the whole
>> - how does the size of bayes_toks correspond to the size of the
>> MailScanner-process? bayes_toks is ~ 82M, I've seen
>> MailScanner-processes with size 203M (RSS 58M), but usually they're
>> size < 50k, RSS < 30M (all values according to `top`)
>> Yes, I could do with a smaller ham/spam corpus, but what I'd like to
>> know before I nuke the bayes-db is if that's the problem and why.
>> Maybe I could just throw in more memory, currently the box has 144 MB
>> RAM, 256 MB swap.
>most people recommend at least 512MB RAM for a Mailscanner server. The
>more RAM the better especially if you are using GNU/Linux and tmpfs for
>the Mailscanner working area.
>I've got a 600Mhz celeron with 512MB ram, 1GB swap running on FreeBSD
>4.8, SA with Bayes but no RBL's anywhere, Mailwatch with a local
>database and it's handling 9-10K messages a day easily. (btw something
>like 75% of this is inbound spam!)
My colo-box is just a petty P1/133 Mhz, and it handles usually no more
than 3.000 mails/day, mostly only about half of that. More than 192 MB
RAM aren't possible due to hardware limitations.
It it weren't for those runaway MailScanners (SAs?), it'd cope just fine,
it handled more than 15.000 mails/day without problems with MS 4.22
(or .23) and SA 2.5mumble when the latest mail-based worm struck.
-- People who would give up their Freedom for security deserve
-- neither. - Benjamin Franklin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20031125/a0d16b62/attachment.bin
More information about the MailScanner