On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 01:38:23 -0700 Max Kanat-Alexander
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, it's not SELinux. For some reason, smaps is set
> root:root 400 for all processes, even though /proc/$$/ is properly
> owned by the "apache" user. I'll have to investigate how to change
> that, I suppose.
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 01:35:02 -0700 Max Kanat-Alexander
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect SELinux, at the moment.
Okay, it's not SELinux. For some reason, smaps is set root:root
400 for all processes, even though /proc/$$/ is properly owned by the
"apache" user. I'll have to inves
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:45:58 +0200 Torsten Foertsch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible that your httpd cannot access /proc/self/smaps?
Yes, that seems to be the problem. It can stat it, but not read
it.
In order to find this out, I had to make Linux::Smaps::update
return $
On Monday 08 October 2007 08:35, Max Kanat-Alexander wrote:
> No, because it still doesn't work, even with the patch. I don't
> even see the warning. The error I get from SizeLimit is:
>
> Can't call method "all" on an undefined value at
> /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thr
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 08:26:51 +0200 Torsten Foertsch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In your modperl environment "use warnings FATAL=>qw/all/" is active.
> Hence, the portable warning is turned into a portable error. That's
> all.
No, because it still doesn't work, even with the patch. I don't
On Sunday 07 October 2007 23:29, Max Kanat-Alexander wrote:
> So it looks like it works fine for what smem is doing, but it
> somehow doesn't work right for Apache2::SizeLimit.
In your modperl environment "use warnings FATAL=>qw/all/" is active. Hence,
the portable warning is turned into
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 14:29:30 -0700 Max Kanat-Alexander
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hrm, okay. I've attached the output of your smem script,
> [snip]
And in case it helps, here's the gzipped output of smaps for the
same process.
-Max
--
http://www.everythingsolved.com/
Compe
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:14:23 +0200 Clinton Gormley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Max - try using this script to see where your memory is being used:
>
> http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~bmaurer/memory/smem.pl
Hrm, okay. I've attached the output of your smem script, which
curiously seemed
> Yes, I think so. The point is 64bit integers are not portable to 32bit perls.
> Hence, even on a 64bit system with warnings enabled a non-portable warning is
> issued:
Ahhh I get it - so it isn't warning you that there is a problem using
this on your system, just that the same input on a 32 b
On Sunday 07 October 2007 15:31, Clinton Gormley wrote:
> > -no warnings qw(uninitialized);
> > +no warnings qw(uninitialized portable);
>
> This patch certaily removes the warnings, and all of the tests pass. But
> does that mean that the module works correctly?
Yes, I think so. The point is 64bi
(Resent with smaller attachment - previous version refused because too large)
> Linux::Smaps simply analyzes /proc/$PID/smaps. It was initially written on a
> 32bit system. Looking at your bug report I assume the hex() function doesn't
> work for 64bit hex values. Can you show us the output of /
On Saturday 06 October 2007 03:52, Max Kanat-Alexander wrote:
> I have an x86_64 machine running RHEL5 but with the mod_perl
> 2.0.3 from Fedora 7.
>
> Without Linux::Smaps installed, Apache2::SizeLimit thinks my
> processes are taking up 300MB and terminates them after every hit.
> ("t
On 10/6/07, Max Kanat-Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, they really are using that much but nearly all of it is
> shared via copy-on-write, as far as I can tell. SizeLimit is supposed
> to be able to detect that situation on modern kernels if you have
> Linux::Smaps installed, acc
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:39:42 -0400 "Perrin Harkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> If top can't figure out how much memory a process is using, I don't
> see how SizeLimit is going to. Is it possible they really are using
> that much, but a lot of it is shared via copy-on-write?
Yes, they rea
On 10/5/07, Max Kanat-Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have an x86_64 machine running RHEL5 but with the mod_perl
> 2.0.3 from Fedora 7.
>
> Without Linux::Smaps installed, Apache2::SizeLimit thinks my
> processes are taking up 300MB and terminates them after every hit.
> ("
I have an x86_64 machine running RHEL5 but with the mod_perl
2.0.3 from Fedora 7.
Without Linux::Smaps installed, Apache2::SizeLimit thinks my
processes are taking up 300MB and terminates them after every hit.
("top" thinks so too, but "free -m" quickly proves that's untrue.)
16 matches
Mail list logo
