Milter-greylist

On Oct 23, 2008, at 11:55 PM, Petar Bogdanovic wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 02:07:58AM +0900, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:31:15 +0200
> > >>>>> Petar Bogdanovic <petar@...> said:
> >
> > petar> It apparently has nothing to do with libspf since I get  
> similar results
> > petar> with libspf_alt and libspf2 (1.2.8). The situation even got  
> worse with
> > petar> libspf2 from another point of view -- milter-greylist using  
> libspf_alt
> > petar> claimed about 15% of the CPU when it had to deal with 900  
> simultaneous
> > petar> connections while the same situation ate every second of  
> the available
> > petar> CPU-time when linked against libspf2. That's why I wasn't  
> able to drop
> > petar> the same amounth of mails through milter-greylist+libspf2:  
> the CPU was
> > petar> the bottleneck.
> >
> > The BIND9's resolver requires res_ndestroy() for cleanup res_state.
> > However, libspf2 doesn't issue res_ndestroy() but issues  
> res_nclose().
> > It causes memory leak. The FreeBSD port of libspf2 has a patch to
> > address this issue.
>
> Thanks, I applied all patches (~10) from the FreeBSD Ports tree and  
> the
> problem is gone. The memory usage of milter-greylist is actually  
> frozen
> now, no matter how hard I try. Also, the claimed cpu-time is much  
> lower.
>

Did you really used libspf2 from pkgsrc?
I only find the current version to be 1.2.5 in there (but it seems to  
miss res_ndestroy() patch(es))
I'll see if I can convince the maintainer put those patches in the  
pkgsrc tree as well.

Regards,
/P