<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 4/11/2015 9:50 PM, Alex Neuman wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANyE0PowgDEttfL7iU+GcSbVBqduS=rnHFTJb8-7uGHaNNS9Dw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Agreed. <br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.linuxatemyram.com/">http://www.linuxatemyram.com/</a><br>
<div><br>
</div>
<img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://www.mailscanner.eu/1x1spacer.gif" alt="Web Bug
from
http://t.signauxneuf.com/e1t/o/5/f18dQhb0S7ks8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9gXrN7sKj6v5dcLCW8qSMPl2zhrHPN4WJlXjQFLCHVLXL-m1k1H6H0?si=5887134288314368&pi=ac6a6638-f82d-4214-e1d0-f6c2d70ad7b1"
height="1" width="1"></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Except that, unless I've been misinterpreting the output of top for
all these years, the buffers column of the output reflects how many
K of memory are used as buffers -- ie: how much of "used" memory is
really "available". BTW: The top-reported buffers and the amount of
buffered memory being reported by `free -m` correlate with
each-other. (and from the "mailscanner running" clipping to the
"mailscanner stopped" one, the amount of memory allocated to buffers
actually went UP.)<br>
<br>
And 1.5GB difference in memory utilization can seem pretty alarming.
But what we don't know based on looking at difference, is: What was
mailscanner doing when it was running, and what else was running /
occupying memory that ALSO stopped before taking the second snap.<br>
<br>
Looking at the top five lines of top's output gives you an overview
of what's going on, but you REALLY need to look at the detail area
to point any fingers. (NOTE: you can change the columns being
displayed, and how you sort by hitting 'f' -- see the man page)(NOTE
#2: If you add columns to top's display, you may have to make your
window wider or scroll left and right in order to be able to see
them.)<br>
<br>
On my system with 2GB of RAM, sitting mostly idle, after 8.5 days of
uptime:<br>
The master mailscanner process has 676kB resident in memory and
33.7MB in swap.<br>
Each of 3 mailscanner child processes has ~100MB resident and ~20MB
in swap.<br>
clamd has 304MB resident and 768k in swap<br>
(I just noticed that I'm still on 4.84.6-1)<br>
<br>
Conceivably, if the OP had Mailscanner.conf set to keep 15
mailscanner processes around, that might explain the difference. <br>
</body>
</html>