Re: Making spamassassin nice?
From: Jon Dowland (dowland_at_gmail.com)
Date: 07/25/05
- Previous message: Jon Dowland: "Re: VMware"
- In reply to: David Baron: "Re: Making spamassassin nice?"
- Next in thread: Clive Menzies: "Re: Making spamassassin nice?"
- Reply: Clive Menzies: "Re: Making spamassassin nice?"
- Reply: Mike Fedyk: "Re: Making spamassassin nice?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:01:23 +0100 To: debian-user <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
On 7/25/05, David Baron <d_baron@012.net.il> wrote:
> Thanks. /etc/default/spamassassin has limits on child processes and nicelevel
> as well.
Can anyone report on what sort of resources are needed to run
spamassassin adequately? Since the upgrade to sarge, SA has totally
killed our virtual machine. We have the lowest-tier bytemark VM (64MB
mem). With a prefork limit of four processes and maximum nice, spamd
still brings it to its knees. How does dspam compare in resources
usage terms?
- Previous message: Jon Dowland: "Re: VMware"
- In reply to: David Baron: "Re: Making spamassassin nice?"
- Next in thread: Clive Menzies: "Re: Making spamassassin nice?"
- Reply: Clive Menzies: "Re: Making spamassassin nice?"
- Reply: Mike Fedyk: "Re: Making spamassassin nice?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|