[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: spamass-milter dies under heavy load
From: |
Matt Cramer |
Subject: |
Re: spamass-milter dies under heavy load |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Sep 2002 17:19:31 -0400 (EDT) |
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Dan Nelson wrote:
> You're right. I forgot SPAMD was exec()'d. I guess a more general
> solution would be to allow the user to specify spamc args when starting
> the milter. I wonder if there's a patch for that already.
Yes, that would be nice. I looked on the fsf site and didn't see one in
the list of patches. Maybe we can help in that regard but first I need
to keep spamass-milter running. ;)
> > I am interested to see if this configuration (with spamc->spamd over
> > the network rather than sendmail->spamass-milter) improves the
> > ability to perform under load.
>
> I'd guess it would. The milter gets called once per header, and once
> per NN bytes of body text (not sure the exact size). Contrast that
> with spamc, which sends the entire message to spamd, and receives the
> entire response in one transaction. Anything that reduces round-trips
> over the network will speed you up.
This is probably a better solution in the long run, but it hasn't solved
our real problem.
First of all I am not a C++ programmer. I was a C programmer a few years
ago and can read and write a bit of C++ but not very well. I have been
tapping one of our developers here to help me debug our problem.
Is spamass-milter thread safe? When we run we go about 20 minutes at most
and then spamass-milter core dumps. We are trying to go through the core
dumps and run systraces on the milter while it is running. Is anyone else
using spamass-milt in a threaded environment like HPUX?
Matt
--
Matthew S. Cramer <address@hidden> Office: 717-396-5032
Infrastructure Security Analyst Fax: 717-396-5590
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Cell: 717-917-7099