Single process taking over?

Wed Feb 18 14:22:10 GMT 2004

Mr. Field,

All seems resolved now. I still have auto_expire off, and will test this
later in the week.

By the way, should I have seen any other files in the root/.spamassassin
directory other than the 3 bayes files and the user prefs file? If not,
should your procedure of moving/rewriting these files be done on a regular
basis?

Thank you ever so much.

Steve Campbell
campbell at cnpapers.com
Charleston Newspapers

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephe Campbell" <campbell at CNPAPERS.COM>
To: <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Single process taking over?

> Mr. Field:
>
> Done. There were 4 files in the /root/.spamassassin folder, the 3 bayes
> files along with user prefs. I assume you wanted bayes turned back on, so
it
> is running that way. I will try to let it run overnight and see how it
does,
> unless it starts crapping sooner.
>
> By the way, I don't have in either MailScanner.conf or
> spam.assassin.prefs.conf a configuration line such as:
>
> auto_learn 0
>
> Could this have helped in any way? I was auto learning on most of my mail
> before I turned it off. I have also disabled the auto_expire, which was
> running and maybe causing the .new files.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Steve Campbell
> campbell at cnpapers.com
> Charleston Newspapers
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Field" <mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
> To: <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 4:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Single process taking over?
>
>
> > As a rather off-the-wall test, can you check to ensure there are no
stray
> > locks outstanding.
> > cd ~root/.spamassassin
> > mkdir temp
> > cp * temp
> > rm *
> > mv temp/* .
> > then restart MailScanner with the bayes engine turned back on.
> > It theoretically shouldn't help, but have seen this improve things in
the
> > past in other applications.
> >
> > At 20:59 17/02/2004, you wrote:
> > >Mr. Field:
> > >
> > >Thank you very much. I have updated clamav to 0.67, and SA to their
> latest
> > >(one at a time, of course for testing purposes). Neither seemed to
> provide
> > >much help, but turning off Bayes, so far has seemed to allow MS to keep
> up.
> > >
> > >Again, my load average is back to it's normal range of 5.00+ whenever
> there
> > >are emails to scan instead of spiralling down to sub 0.75 levels
> regardless
> > >of what was in incoming. If only I had a machine where the lower range
> was
> > >normal.
> > >
> > >I will follow the list in the event something is found with the latest
> bayes
> > >engine.
> > >
> > >Thank you very much.
> > >
> > >Steve Campbell
> > >campbell at cnpapers.com
> > >Charleston Newspapers
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Julian Field" <mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
> > >To: <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 11:31 AM
> > >Subject: Re: Single process taking over?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Can you try switching off Bayes (use_bayes 0 in
> spam.assassin.prefs.conf).
> > > > Then let me know if the problem recurs.
> > > >
> > > > Also, upgrade your SA to 2.63 in case you are seeing a bug in SA.
> > > >
> > > > At 15:31 17/02/2004, you wrote:
> > > > >Mr. Field,
> > > > >
> > > > >I have been going through pretty much the same situation as
described
> > >with
> > > > >this post. The exception is that my machine does not show a
> domineering
> > > > >process and load average drops to near nothing. I have been trying
to
> > >change
> > > > >sendmail to remedy this problem, but I may be looking at the wrong
> part
> > >of
> > > > >the puzzle. I have still not determined what is going on, but I do
> see a
> > >lot
> > > > >of Bayes lock files and one main bayes.lock file. It peaks once I
see
> the
> > > > >bayes_toks.new file which seems to stay around forever. I offer
this
> only
> > >to
> > > > >maybe point things toward a solution.
> > > > >
> > > > >I am running
> > > > >     MS 4.26.8-1
> > > > >     SA 2.61-1
> > > > >     ClamAV 0.65
> > > > >     MailWatch 0.5.1
> > > > >     Sendmail 8.11.6-27.73
> > > > >     RH 7.3
> > > > >
> > > > >I upgraded MS on a Monday and MailWatch on a Wednesday. That week
> > >problems
> > > > >started happening. The problems seemed to be resolved by my
removing
> my
> > > > >Bayes files (you suggested poisoning, and this appeared to have
been
> the
> > > > >case), but since I must stop MS, remove all of the bayes lock
files,
> the
> > > > >bayes_tok.new file, restart MS and all appears fine. Load average
> climbs
> > >to
> > > > >normal to normal-high limits, my incoming backlog clears quickly
and
> > > > >everything is fine. I replaced my Message.pm file with the the one
> you
> > > > >posted to the list, and that is the only other change I have made
to
> the
> > > > >above installed programs.
> > > > >
> > > > >I hope some common thread may appear from my configuration and what
> > >others
> > > > >describe to shed some light on this. Most people don't complain
about
> > >load
> > > > >averages this low, but to me it signals a slow down in my mail
> system,
> > > > >creating backlogs in the incoming queue.
> > > > >
> > > > >Thank you for your efforts, sir.
> > > > >
> > > > >Steve Campbell
> > > > >campbell at cnpapers.com
> > > > >Charleston Newspapers
> > > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "Julian Field" <mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
> > > > >To: <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> > > > >Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 7:24 AM
> > > > >Subject: Re: Single process taking over?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > At 11:38 17/02/2004, you wrote:
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: MailScanner mailing list
> [mailto:MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK]
> > >On
> > > > > > > > Behalf Of Julian Field
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 17 February 2004 8:36 PM
> > > > > > > > To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Single process taking over?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ah, a reproducible fault! I like those :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I don't!!  :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What does your MailScanner.conf look like? (just the
> interesting
> > >bits,
> > > > > > > > don't care what all the filenames of your reports are and
> stuff
> > >like
> > > > > > > > that).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >See below..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What virus scanner(s), SpamAssassin, etc?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >ClamAV, McAfee, Spamassassin 2.6.3, DCC, Razor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What is the last thing the runaway process logs before CPU
> > >hogging?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Nothing abnormal, just the process starting and mail being
> processed,
> > > > >even
> > > > > > >in verbose logging, it just appears to be a normal process that
> won't
> > >let
> > > > > > >the other threads have any resources.  If I kill it, the other
> > >threads
> > > > >spawn
> > > > > > >and run as per normal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Does the CPU hogging start the instant you start
MailScanner,
> or
> > >the
> > > > > > > > instant the first child process runs, or when?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >As soon as mail begins to be processed.  If no mail is in the
> queue,
> > >not
> > > > > > >hogging, but the second any mail is in queue it's hogging.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >MailScanner.conf
> > > > > > >============================================
> > > > > > >Max Children = 4
> > > > > > >Queue Scan Interval = 1
> > > > > > >MTA = sendmail
> > > > > > >Max Unscanned Bytes Per Scan = 100000000
> > > > > > >Max Unsafe Bytes Per Scan = 50000000
> > > > > > >Max Unscanned Messages Per Scan = 15
> > > > > > >Max Unsafe Messages Per Scan = 15
> > > > > > >Virus Scanning = yes
> > > > > > >Virus Scanners = mcafee clamav
> > > > > > >Virus Scanner Timeout = 300
> > > > > > >Spam Checks = yes
> > > > > > >Spam List =
> > > > > > >Use SpamAssassin = yes
> > > > > > >Max SpamAssassin Size = 90000
> > > > > > >Deliver In Background = yes
> > > > > > >Delivery Method = batch
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you reckon you could reproduce the problem on a box to which
> you
> > >could
> > > > > > give me login access? I suspect it's something very simple, but
I
> have
> > > > > > never witnessed it here and it's apparently not a common
problem.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Julian Field
> > > > > > www.MailScanner.info
> > > > > > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Julian Field
> > > > www.MailScanner.info
> > > > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
> > > >
> > > > PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
> >
> > --
> > Julian Field
> > www.MailScanner.info
> > Professional Support Services at www.MailScanner.biz
> > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
> > PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654