Single process taking over?
Stephe Campbell
campbell at CNPAPERS.COM
Wed Feb 18 16:02:49 GMT 2004
Mr. Field,
That was it. 3 bayes files and the user_prefs:
drwx------ 3 root root 4096 Feb 17 16:26 .
drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4096 Feb 18 09:16 ..
-rw------- 1 root root 141509 Feb 17 16:25 bayes_journal
-rw------- 1 root root 2506752 Feb 17 16:25 bayes_seen
-rw------- 1 root root 8818688 Feb 17 16:25 bayes_toks
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Feb 17 16:26 temp
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1178 Feb 17 16:25 user_prefs
I'm not real sure, though, what caused the fix. As I indicated, I upgraded
ClamAV and SpamAssassin, and tested each before proceding to the next step.
Neither seemed to fix the problem on a short-term basis. Maybe letting them
run longer would have fixed something or showed a different result. I then
did your suggestion for the bayes locks in the root home directory. This was
all that was there before and after the move. I did turn bayes off and back
on after the move of these files to temp. I also have auto_expire off now.
So I ventured from good problem solving and did two things at once - the mv
of all the files into temp directory and turning off auto_expiry. That's why
I thought I might turn this back on later since SA was updated. I never did
see a "completion" in my maillogs for the expiry.
My personal feelings about all of this has always been the Auto_expire
stuff, but I'm no expert, as you may be able to tell from my sometimes
sporadic posts, and was going to attempt the switching off of this prior to
your replies.
Thanks
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: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Single process taking over?
> At 14:22 18/02/2004, you wrote:
> >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?
>
> What else have you got in there. Show us an "ls -al".
>
>
>
> >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
>
> --
> Julian Field
> www.MailScanner.info
> MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
>
> PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
More information about the MailScanner
mailing list