![]() |
SA Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
Summary: | Spamc/Spamd Overload Failover | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Spamassassin | Reporter: | Marc Perkel <crap> |
Component: | spamc/spamd | Assignee: | SpamAssassin Developer Mailing List <dev> |
Status: | NEW --- | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | bugzilla.spamassassin.org |
Priority: | P5 | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Target Milestone: | Undefined | ||
Hardware: | Other | ||
OS: | other | ||
Whiteboard: |
Description
Marc Perkel
2007-05-31 07:10:17 UTC
FWIW, when I needed to do this I just used a firewall to block connections after X number of concurrent connections on port 783. That's an interesting alternative solution. However doesn't it seem reasonable that if spamd is maxed out that spamc should know it and go on to the next server? spamc doesn't sem smart enough to do that yet. And - I'd also like it to have limits so that it closes the port on high load levels and low free memory. What is your iptables command that limits connections? I could use this idea, also. Right now I use spamc -d spamdArecord to process messages. A nice feature would be spamc -d spamdArecord -b backup_spamdArecord where it would only overflow if one or more servers in the first list failed. |