Bug 169903

Summary:	Spamd children eat memory
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Nickolay V. Shmyrev <nshmyrev>
Component:	evolution	Assignee:	Dave Malcolm <dmalcolm>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	felicity, jm, parkerm, pebolle, reg+redhat, wtogami
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2006-01-13 05:37:02 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	150221

Description Nickolay V. Shmyrev 2005-10-04 21:53:24 UTC

I have spamassassin-3.0.4-1.fc4 installed on my laptop with 256 Mb of memory. 

I know, there was similar problems like bug 126792, bug 141150 and bug 151433
but since I can reopen them let me describe once again:

I just have spamassassin service enabled by default and it seems that evolution
starts local spamd if it doesn't find spamd in system. but after start spamd
spawns 5 processes and each eats 26 Mb of memory (about half of my system
memory). It became impossible to compile program and get mail.

Currently I've changed option to run spamd to -m1 to spawn only 1 process, but
even 50 Mb constantly occupied of memory it too much for spam checking.

Comment 1 Nickolay V. Shmyrev 2005-10-05 17:37:40 UTC

Well, I am wrong a bit with situation, actually it's evolution bug 

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=268852

But it think there is sense in consideration of lowering default number of
children for spamd to 1. 5 children with 200 connections per each is needed only
for system with _very_ large number of users.

Comment 2 Warren Togami 2005-10-05 17:49:22 UTC

I think it is reasonable for evolution to start one spamd child if it launches
spamd.  Reassigning.

Comment 3 Justin Mason 2005-10-05 18:42:44 UTC

FWIW, I agree -- 5 children makes sense in a multi-user, lots of mail delivered
in parallel, environment, which does not describe the Evolution use-case.

BTW SA 3.1.0 is better about scaling the number of children to fit the load.

Comment 4 Dave Malcolm 2006-01-13 05:37:02 UTC

Upstream bug report is now CLOSED FIXED:
Comment #10 from vivek jain    (points: 12)
2005-10-06 11:26 UTC [reply] Private

committed the fix to CVS head.


Closing this bug report as RAWHIDE; please re-open if this is still not fixed.