Memory Usage {Scanned}

[Mike Kercher]

My understanding is that this is normal behavior.  The kernel releases
memory as it is needed.  Output of free on 2 of my machines:

$ free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:       1548284    1457620      90664          0     131196     782980
-/+ buffers/cache:     543444    1004840
Swap:      1044216      47660     996556

# free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:       1022796     944676      78120          0     188224     341936
-/+ buffers/cache:     414516     608280
Swap:      2048276     170856    1877420

Mike


> -----Original Message-----
> From: MailScanner mailing list 
> [mailto:MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Karl Bailey
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:34 PM
> To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: Memory Usage {Scanned}
> 
> I've run MailScanner with sendmail for over a year, hasn't 
> gone wrong once, I always upgrade to latest version. Mail 
> gets past through spam assassin & three virus scanners, it 
> started life on a 2Ghz dual xeon machine with 1 Gbyte ram 
> running RH7.3, it now lives on a 3Ghz dual xeon with 2Gbytes 
> ram under RH9.0. I also manage a remote mailscanner in a 
> small office RH8.0 single 1100Mhz PIII with 512MBytes ram.. 
> Same results! The machines are dedicated & no gui is running, 
> it's a very trimmed down install.
> 
> My memory usage is through the roof all the time, never drops 
> below 90% of physical memory used, this was first seen using 
> snmp, I got interested & ran mailscanner-mrtg both show the 
> same thing.. Memory usage through the roof. I can attach the 
> mem graph if you wish.. But my point is... There seems to be 
> no problem with this machines are solid, but I am interested 
> in why the memory usage is so high, I figured I'd claw some 
> of the memory back when upgrading the machine to 2Gbyte of 
> ram but it seems as much of the memory is grabbed as possible 
> by MailScanner.
> 
> Regards
> Karl Bailey
> Systems Administrator
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MailScanner mailing list 
> [mailto:MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of David Shaw
> Sent: 01 April 2004 00:00
> To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: Memory Usage {Scanned}
> 
> I thought the same thing, but Ricks comment are correct.
> 
> Here is my output. Look at the 2nd line under free. I have 
> 781256 free.
> 12-9-14-103 rules]# free
>              total       used       free     shared    
> buffers     cached
> Mem:       1030908     977196      53712          0     
> 215396     512148
> -/+ buffers/cache:     249652     781256
> Swap:      2040244      23628    2016616
> 
> 
> David
> --
> Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
> 
> 
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: Kai Schaetzl <maillists at CONACTIVE.COM>
> To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Sent: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 00:36:59 +0200
> Subject: Re: Memory Usage {Scanned}
> 
> > Rob Burtelow wrote on         Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:58:02 -0600:
> > 
> > > I'm running MailScanner on a RedHat ES 3 box and having problems 
> > > with really high memory usage, almost to the point of running out.
> > >
> > 
> > Apart from Ricks comment, even if you *had* a memory 
> problem there's 
> > nothing in your posted data which would indicate that Mailscanner 
> > causes the problem.
> > 
> > Kai
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
> > Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: 
> http://www.conactive.com
> > IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org
> > 
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by 
> > MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
> > Please contact support at computer-medic.us if you have 
> questions about 
> > this email.
> ------- End of Original Message -------
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous 
> content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
> Please contact support at computer-medic.us if you have 
> questions about this email.
>