/etc/init.d/MailScanner stop: caught SIGTERM, aborting

[Scott Silva]

on 5-27-2009 1:32 PM Jarry spake the following:
> Julian Field wrote:
> 
>>> No, I'm using F-Prot, and no SpamAssassin. My server has 2GB memory,
>>> and out of it, running a few vservers. The one serving mail (strip-down
>>> gentoo, with sendmail, f-prot and mailscanner) eats ~350MB physical
>>> memory right after boot, out of that more than 300MB is mailscanner.
>>> I could not believe it, when I saw it for the first time. 300 megs!!!
> 
>> And memory costs about 20 or 30 quid per gigabyte, roughly speaking. 
> 
> Memory-slots in motherboard are a little more expensive. Especially
> if they are all already occupied...
> 
>> What's your question again?
> 
>>>>> And the 2nd problem, MailScanner is eating too much memory:
>>>>>
>>>>> # ps aux | grep MailScanner
>>>>> root  8047  0.0  0.7  93148 31084 ?  Ss   13:53   0:00 MailScanner:
>>>>> master
>>>>> waiting for children, sleeping
>>>>> root  8048  0.0  1.5 140136 64692 ?  S    13:53   0:00 MailScanner:
>>>>> waiting
>>>>> for messages
>>>>> root  8140  0.0  1.5 140136 64696 ?  S    13:54   0:00 MailScanner:
>>>>> waiting
>>>>> for messages
>>>>> root  8173  0.0  1.5 140136 64696 ?  S    13:54   0:00 MailScanner:
>>>>> waiting
>>>>> for messages
>>>>> root  8176  0.0  1.5 140140 64696 ?  S    13:54   0:00 MailScanner:
>>>>> waiting
>>>>> for messages
>>>>> root  8177  0.0  1.5 140140 64696 ?  S    13:54   0:00 MailScanner:
>>>>> waiting
>>>>> for messages
>>>>>
>>>>> ~330 MB RESS, ~1GB VIRTS, is *this* normal?
> 
> That above mentioned *this* does not apply to virtual size only,
> but resident size too. But if my question is not clear, let me
> rephrase it:
> 
> In my case, MailScanner takes right after the start about 300MB
> of physical memory (default installation, f-prot, no antispam).
> Is it normal for MailScanner to take so much memory?
> 
> That is all I want to know. At the first moment, I thought about
> memory leak or configuration being screwed up. That value simply
> scared me, because all services on all virtual servers on that
> physical server together do not take so much memory...
> 
> Jarry
> 
Virtual services although technically separate can still share loaded modules
in some places. That is why the ram usage looks so low for them. MailScanner
is not a virtual system, it is a hungry, snarling beast waiting to devour your
spam and spit out the pieces. ;-P


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 258 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20090527/21d041df/signature.bin