On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 10:40:51AM -0500, Darrell Budic wrote: > > On Mar 9, 2015, at 4:51 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:58:53AM -0600, Darrell Budic wrote: > >> I believe the supervdsm leak was fixed, but 3.5.1 versions of vdsmd still > >> leaks slowly, ~300k/hr, yes. > >> > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1158108 > >> > >> > >>> On Mar 6, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Chris Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Once upon a time, Federico Alberto Sayd <[email protected]> said: > >>>> I am experiencing troubles with VDSM memory consuption. > >>>> > >>>> I am running > >>>> > >>>> Engine: ovirt 3.5.1 > >>>> > >>>> Nodes: > >>>> > >>>> Centos 6.6 > >>>> VDSM 4.16.10-8 > >>>> Libvirt: libvirt-0.10.2-46 > >>>> Kernel: 2.6.32 > >>>> > >>>> When the host boots, memory consuption is normal, but after 2 or 3 > >>>> days running, VDSM memory consuption grows and it consumes more > >>>> memory that all vm's running in the host. If I restart the vdsm > >>>> service, memory consuption normalizes, but then it start growing > >>>> again. > >>>> > >>>> I have seen some BZ about vdsm and supervdsm about memory leaks, but > >>>> I don't know if VDSM 4.6.10.8 is still affected by a related bug. > >>> > >>> Can't help, but I see the same thing with CentOS 7 nodes and the same > >>> version of vdsm. > >>> -- > >>> Chris Adams <[email protected]> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Users mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > I'm afraid that we are yet to find a solution for this issue, which is > > completly different from the horrible leak of supervdsm < 4.16.7. > > > > Could you corroborate the claim of > > Bug 1147148 - M2Crypto usage in vdsm leaks memory > > ? Does the leak disappear once you start using plaintext transport? > > > > Regards, > > Dan. > > I don’t think this is crypto related, but I could try that if you still need > some confirmation (and point me at a quick doc on switching to plaintext?). > > This is from #ovirt around November 18th I think, Saggi thought he’d found > something related: > > 9:58:43 AM saggi: YamakasY: Found the leak > 9:58:48 AM saggi: YamakasY: Or at least the flow > 9:58:57 AM saggi: YamakasY: The good news is that I can reproduce > 9:59:20 AM YamakasY: saggi: that's kewl! > 9:59:25 AM YamakasY: saggi: what happens ? > 9:59:41 AM YamakasY: I know from Telsin (ping ping!) that he sees it going > faster on gluster usage > tdosek left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds). (10:00:02 AM) > djasa left the room (quit: Quit: Leaving). (10:00:24 AM) > mlipchuk left the room (quit: Quit: Leaving.). (10:00:29 AM) > laravot left the room (quit: Quit: Leaving.). (10:01:19 AM) > 10:01:54 AM saggi: YamakasY: it's in getCapabilities(). Here is the RSS > graph. The flatlines are when I stopped calling it and called other verbs. > http://i.imgur.com/CLm0Q75.png
I do recall what is the issue Saggi and YamakasY were dicussing (CCing the pair), or if it reached fruition as a patch. It is certainly something other than Bug 1158108, as the latter speak about a leak in a normal working state, with no getCapabilities calls. _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
