Milter-greylist

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:37:36AM +0200, Fredrik Pettai wrote:
> 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

I did use the current version (1.2.5). See LOCALPATCHES.


> I'll see if I can convince the maintainer put those patches in the
> pkgsrc tree as well.

Yes, please!