MailScanner very memory intensive?

[Remy de Ruysscher]

Hi,

No BigEvil rules are decrepated I believe. I do a.o. have these SA rules:

-rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel     24298 Oct  5 22:00 70_sare_evilnum0.cf
-rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel      1574 Jun  2  2005 70_sare_evilnum1.cf
-rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel      6970 Jun  2  2005 70_sare_evilnum2.cf


On Sat, March 4, 2006 10:13, shuttlebox wrote:
> On 3/4/06, Remy de Ruysscher <remy at unix-asp.com> wrote:
>> 60795 postfix     1   8    0   470M   210M nanslp   0:50  0.00%
>> perl5.8.8
>> 68200 postfix     1   8    0   470M   378M nanslp   0:49  0.00%
>> perl5.8.8
>> 53602 postfix     1   8    0   470M 55660K nanslp   0:49  0.00%
>> perl5.8.8
>> 69900 postfix     1   8    0   470M   389M nanslp   0:48  0.00%
>> perl5.8.8
>> 72078 postfix     1   8    0   470M   389M nanslp   0:48  0.00%
>> perl5.8.8
>
> If those are your MS processes something looks very wrong. Depending
> on how much rules I use in SA my processes use 25-40 MB of memory per
> child. Yours are more than 10 times that!
>
> You're not using the BigEvil rules are you?
>
> --
> /peter
> --
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
>
> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
>
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!
>


Met vriendelijk groet / kind regards,
Remy de Ruysscher

remy at unix-asp.com