Mailscanner memory-size increasing

[Leen Besselink]

On Sat, 8 May 2004, Kevin Spicer wrote:

> On Sat, 2004-05-08 at 10:50, Leen Besselink wrote:
> > That should not be happing I would say.
>
> Actually the process size and number of processes seems pretty normal.
> The parent process is smaller because it is fairly minimal, a lot of the
> memory intensive stuff is left to the children.  The children do fork
> copies of themselves during processing to handle various timeouts etc.
> which is why you sometimes see a third process.
>

That didn't strike me as a big problem, although I was wondering about the
situation of a batches, how are they handled, with only one sub-process
? Seems more like it.

> You didn't mention how much ram and swap you have, which is pretty

        total:    used:    free:  shared: buffers:  cached:
Mem:  196288512 178991104 17297408        0 32878592 56967168
Swap: 748490752 47316992 701173760

> crucial in discussing this kind of thing.  Also do you have any
> filesystems mounted in tmpfs (such as the MailScanner work directory or
> /tmp)?

no

Well, I hope I was just a bit too hasty. For now I just excluded the
quarantine-directory from the daily rsync-backup. rsync can be quiet a
memory hog, I'll point at that for now.

Although I still wonder what it means if in vmstat swpd is steadily
increasing.

Lots of numbers seemed to increase over time, I guess it's because I just
started up the machine (swpd in vmstat for example) (there is dnscache and
slapd, they both increase slowly at startup I'm sure, maybe postfix
master-process ?).

Let's leave it at that.

-------------------------- MailScanner list ----------------------
To leave, send    leave mailscanner    to jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk
Before posting, please see the Most Asked Questions at
http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/     and the archives at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html