Russell,
WRT naming. As we'd already announced at CodeBEAM that 2.9.1 was pending
in September and would be adding some extra functionality (the automated
repl replacement), I didn't want to call the patched versions of 2.9.0 by
that name, as that might cause confusion. The whole choosing 2.9 th
ed/issues/278.
> >>
> >> There is a new patched version of the release available (2.9.0p1) at
> >> https://github.com/basho/riak/tree/riak-2.9.0p1. This should be used
> in
> >> preference to the original release of 2.9.0.
> >>
> >> Updated packages are
ages are available (thanks to Nick Adams at TI Tokyo) -
>> https://files.tiot.jp/riak/kv/2.9/2.9.0p1/
>>
>> Thanks also to the testing team at the NHS Spine project, Aaron Gibbon
>> (BJSS) and Ramen Sen, who discovered the problem.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>&g
Top quality spelunking - always fun to read - thanks Martin !
> On 28 Jun 2019, at 10:24, Martin Sumner wrote:
>
> Bryan,
>
> We saw that Riak was using much more memory than was expected at the end of
> the handoffs. Using `riak-admin top` we could see that this wasn't process
> memory, but
Good job on finding and fixing so fast.
I have to ask. What's with the naming scheme? Why not 2.9.2 instead of
2.9.0p2?
Cheers
Russell
On 28/06/2019 10:24, Martin Sumner wrote:
Bryan,
We saw that Riak was using much more memory than was expected at the
end of the handoffs. Using `riak-ad
Bryan,
We saw that Riak was using much more memory than was expected at the end of
the handoffs. Using `riak-admin top` we could see that this wasn't process
memory, but binaries. Firstly did some work via attach looping over
processes and running GC to confirm that this wasn't a failure to coll
There is now a second update available for 2.9.0:
https://github.com/basho/riak/tree/riak-2.9.0p2.
This patch, like the patch before, resolves a memory management issue in
leveled, which this time could be triggered by sending many large objects
in a short period of time. The underlying problem i
