Re: high cpu utilization with spamass-milter 0.2.0?

[Changeling]

--- Dan Nelson wrote:
> In the last episode (Jul 24), Changeling said:
> > Has anyone else experienced high CPU utilization
> when using
> > spamass-milter 0.2.0?  I have been running
> SpamAssassin 2.55 with
> > spamass-milter 0.1.3a for a couple months now on a
> 500mhz RedHat 9
> > machine.  Average CPU utilization is between 1-10%
> with spamd and
> > spamass-milter spiking the CPU to 99% very briefly
> (for about a
> > second) when processing a new email.  Yesterday I
> upgraded to 0.2.0
> > and immediately noticed my CPU utilization average
> around 80-99%.  It
> > seemed the culprit was the spamd and
> spamass-milter processes which
> > were both consuming around 80-99% cpu for an
> extended period of time
> > (up to 30-45 seconds).  Logs
> 
> Weird.  Could you strace either or both processes
> when this happens and
> see what the syscall activity is?  I haven't seen
> spamd consume more
> than 2 seconds of CPU per message on my pIII/500 and
> it averages .5 sec
> (according to lastcomm spamd).  Spamass-milter
> itself takes almost no
> CPU (6 CPU seconds in 6 hours).
> 
> -- 
>       Dan Nelson

Measuring over a 15 minute interval, using 0.1.3a
spamd averages about 0.96 seconds (max time was 3.7
seconds) while using 0.2.0 spamd averages about 5.26
seconds (max time was 34.86).  Spamass-milter doesn't
seem to take any more or less time either way.  When
stracing I didn't see anything out of the ordinary
except that it seemed that when several emails came in
in a row sometimes spamd would spin a while trying to
get a lock on the auto-whitelist file.  This caused
several spamd processes to queue up waiting to access
the file.  I turned off auto-whitelisting for spamd
and now spamd runs as quickly with 0.2.0 as it does
with 0.1.3a.  However two things still concern me: 1.
It almost sounds like the problem is with
SpamAssassin, but why didnt this problem show up until
I upgraded to 0.2.0 and why does it immediately go
away when downgrading to 0.1.3a?  2. Spamd with
auto-whitelisting running with 0.1.3a runs as quickly
as spamd without auto-whitelisting running with 0.2.0?
 It seems almost like spamass-milter is responsible
somehow for the consumption of the extra resources
that are made available once auto-whitelisting is
turned off.

Brian


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com