Bayesian shenanigans (i.e. problems)

[Martin Hepworth]

David Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Martin Hepworth wrote:
>
>
>>David Lee wrote:
>>
>>>[...]
>>>At 2.62, the SA folk seem to have recognised the 2.61 "bayes_toks"
>>>problem, and instead of "bayes_toks.new" are now using filename patterns
>>>"bayes_toks.expire$$" (where $$ is the process id).  (Do a diff of the
>>>2.61 and 2.62 versions of "lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore.pm".)
>>>
>>>BUT... the result is that instead of one huge "bayes_toks.new" file, there
>>>now seem to be an increasing number of orphaned "bayes_toks.expire$$"
>>>files.  (Given that $$ could typically span all integers up to 30,000, the
>>>accumulating disk usage results could become 'interesting'...)
>>>
>>>I realise such SA details take us somewhat off-topic from strict
>>>MailScanner.  But has anyone here got any experience of this with SA 2.62,
>>>or monitoring it on SA lists?  (Perhaps I need to rejoing an SA list or at
>>>least ferret through their recent archives...)
>>>
>>
>>Can't say that (1) I've seen this on my server or (2) on the sa-talk list.
>>
>>Perhaps you need to get back on the sa-talk list and ask them??
>
>
> Thanks, Martin.  I posted a note on sa-talk a couple of days ago, but had
> not one reply.
>
> But I think we need to come back to MS despite my earlier thought that
> this SA/bayes thing might be taking us somewhat off-topic.
>
> Meanwhile, looking deeper locally, I had seen some things which suggest
> that the problem may actually be MS's, or at least its use of SA.  We
> (durham.ac.uk) have 3 MX records: two of equal low-value (preferred), and
> one of higher value (i.e. quasi-backup, our production-test).  As far as
> we know, all are identically configured.
>
> But we only see the problem on the two main, busy servers, not on the
> lightly-loaded background one.  In addition (and here's the clincher which
> pulls us back to MS, or at least MS-triggering):
>
> 1. The busy servers, which suffer from this problem, have many "maillog"
>    entries of the form "MailScanner[...]: Delete bayes lockfile for $$"
>    (where "$$" looks like a process number), and have these orphaned files
>    called "bayes_toks.expire$$" (same value "$$").
>
> 2. The backup, quiet server has no such maillog messages, and no such
>    orphaned files.
>
> So there is clearly something in MS's use of SA on busy machines (in a
> timeout/locking-like area) that is causing these orphaned files (SA2.62)
> and presumably the equivalent huge "bayes_toks.new" (SA 2.61)).
>
> Thoughts, anyone?  How to begin to try to trace this??

David
in the MailScanner.conf set the Debug flags for SA and MS (they are
within a couple of lines together), and see what you get.

Also make sure you've got the DB_FILE perl module installed and also the
persmissions on the directory holding the bayes DB is fine.

what versions of perl are you running and what MTA?

--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300


**********************************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean.

**********************************************************************