From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pmg-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 331641FF165
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:37:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 36C8616F3E;
	Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:37:32 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:36:58 +0100
From: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <20250226153658.3a698aed@rosa.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <92fe7dd2-df3c-4762-aaea-0966813ca141@proxmox.com>
References: <20250226140742.2919230-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <92fe7dd2-df3c-4762-aaea-0966813ca141@proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.38; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.066 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
 information. [proxmox.com]
Subject: Re: [pmg-devel] [PATCH pmg-docs] bump minimum memory requirement
X-BeenThere: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Mail Gateway development discussion
 <pmg-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pmg-devel>, 
 <mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pmg-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pmg-devel>, 
 <mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Cc: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pmg-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pmg-devel" <pmg-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:24:51 +0100
Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> wrote:

> Am 26.02.25 um 15:07 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
> > since a while, we need more than 4 GiB memory for pmg, because
> > clamd/clamav requires more than before.  
> 
> But only for ZFS where by default ARC takes up half of memory?
2G Ram only does not work too well with clamav (maybe after/when
updating only) - at least on my test-containers, where ARC should not be
counted towards their cgroup memory limit I've seen a few OOM-kills of
clamav when setting 2G IIRC.


> 
> If that's indeed the case I'd rather enable lower ZFS default ARC for such
> systems in the installer.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pmg-devel mailing list
> pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com
> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pmg-devel
> 
> 



_______________________________________________
pmg-devel mailing list
pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pmg-devel