From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 27 17:15:29 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA6F71065671 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:15:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tinguely@casselton.net) Received: from casselton.net (casselton.net [63.165.140.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7D58FC1D for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:15:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tinguely@casselton.net) Received: from casselton.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by casselton.net (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m1RHFSJU053998 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:15:28 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from tinguely@casselton.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=casselton.net; s=ccnMail; t=1204132528; bh=hCY7zqF41LEIi7fEFR2Z2YZ+KUg=; h=Date: From:Message-Id:To:Subject:In-Reply-To; b=dZyYN3XILrziyJaaNF1Z3ICX ZIQS3L6xqrgVVFxhiS/RLqvp6h/DwQaoiQyLiZWtWaehFpKSjOleVjRkvy8/XEfq4Yx yRhC1KRXCsSuwVsudI+P8i2Y9a5u7H3p0Bft7EvDxJ5hKXU04tEHtcgBJsawK5+Hs87 4XXt7vezaNLxU= Received: (from tinguely@localhost) by casselton.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m1RHFSxV053997 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:15:28 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from tinguely) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:15:28 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Tinguely Message-Id: <200802271715.m1RHFSxV053997@casselton.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <47C584D9.4080409@chrononomicon.com> Subject: Re: sudden peak in load average X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:15:30 -0000 > Is it possible that there's a message in your queue that's *being > processed*, so it may have arrived earlier than near that time and > causes the spike? Bart is correct that the SA processing occurs before sendmail log entry. Lately, I have had problems with the latest spamass-milter. Occasionally, something is forking off another spamass-milter and the original one is in some tight loop eating processor time. I am not sure if it is the newer spamass-milter or the fact that I also added the dkim-milter into the mix. FYI: I sent to the original questioner a crude C program to monitor his current loadaverage. This monitor will save the output of the command "ps -aux" to a timestamped temporary file when the current loadaverage exceeds a defined amount (15.0). --Mark Tinguely