From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 2 17:43:58 2007 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 8E7F316A418 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:43:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@boosten.org) Received: from ra.egypt.nl (cp268254-a.landg1.lb.home.nl [213.51.103.48]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D8FC13C4A5 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:43:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@boosten.org) Received: from ra.egypt.nl (localhost.egypt.nl [127.0.0.1]) by ra.egypt.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2999398B6 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:43:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: by ra.egypt.nl (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7D6AE39885; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:43:56 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on ra.egypt.nl X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, AWL autolearn=ham version=3.2.1 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (xp.egypt.nl [192.168.13.35]) by ra.egypt.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDEEC398AB for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:43:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <46B217D7.40508@boosten.org> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:43:51 +0200 From: Peter Boosten User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Freebsd questions References: <20070802105401.06b4e31a.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <69cb4cbb7b86698b706a7443412b9284@szalbot.homedns.org> In-Reply-To: <69cb4cbb7b86698b706a7443412b9284@szalbot.homedns.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000763-2, 08/02/2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: Re: getting fair share of CPU for processes 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: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:43:58 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Zbigniew Szalbot wrote: > Hi Bill and all, > >>> So I am wondering it it is OK for me to limit the spamd user to how much >>> CPU power it can get? I saw in the Handbook that it is possible to limit >>> resources per user. Do you think it is a good thing to do? Will I be >> better >>> off limiting spamd user or will it make the situation worse because SA >>> will/may choke? Many thanks for any advice you can give me. I really >>> appreciate it! >> The most typical method of handling this would be nice(1) (see the man >> page for details). > > Thanks - I will do some reading. > >> Also, I'm not clear as to what problem you're tyring to solve. High load >> on a busy server certainly isn't a problem, so where is the problem? > > The problem that sometimes, though for a very short period of time, the > load goes above 14. The load is roughly a combination of resources programs are waiting for, and that doesn't necessarily have to be CPU cycles, but something else could be your bottleneck, like disk IO. I suggest finding the real problem. You could throttle sendmail (or any MTA) a bit by lowering the point where it starts temp-failing email (with an 450), but that's just a workaround. Peter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGshfVrvsez6l/SvARAhFqAJ955u+eRhRs5Mu4yHXLg4oemX/sUQCfYqCG lul2O+hkyEyohYSwXDrZjxY= =WNLx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----