Just an advise . I don't know what the problem is,however suppose that this is OOM killer - why not just add some GB of swap disk spae is even chiper then RAM Evgeny
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Carl <c...@etrak-plus.com> wrote: > Chuck and Dan, > > First, some housekeeping to respond to your points and questions: > > 1. The 3.6GB I stated in my prior email to Dan was the total memory used. > The Tomcat process (from top) was 1.7-1.8GB. > > 2. I did not know that Linux cached disk accesses in RAM. I have worked > with Linux (and Unix and Aix before that) for a number of years but never > understood all the pieces... as long as it worked, I was happy (and, in > general, I didn't ask much of the systems.) > > To sum up your observations: The memory usage I was seeing was not unusual > and not likely the source of the problem. > > The system failed again about 30 minutes ago. The overall memory dropped > to 2.9GB (from top.) > > The last entries in catalina.out were: > > 41608.326: [GC 41608.326: [ParNew: 72021K->4186K(76672K), 0.0674360 secs] > 376022K->309373K(1040064K) icms_dc=0 , 0.0675430 secs] [Times: user=0.25 > sys=0.00, real=0.07 secs] > 41610.048: [GC 41610.048: [ParNew: 72346K->8512K(76672K), 0.0408460 secs] > 377533K->318233K(1040064K) icms_dc=0 , 0.0409480 secs] [Times: user=0.15 > sys=0.00, real=0.04 secs] > > The GC information in catalina.out before that was: > > 41391.749: [GC 41391.749: [ParNew: 70179K->2466K(76672K), 0.0064220 secs] > 374180K->306467K(1040064K) icms_dc=0 , 0.0065240 secs] [Times: user=0.02 > sys=0.00, > real=0.01 secs] > 41393.383: [GC 41393.383: [ParNew: 70626K->2571K(76672K), 0.0059940 secs] > 374627K->306572K(1040064K) icms_dc=0 , 0.0060940 secs] [Times: user=0.03 > sys=0.00, > real=0.01 secs] > > and before that: > > 41216.669: [GC 41216.669: [ParNew: 69204K->2621K(76672K), 0.0068300 secs] > 367414K->300832K(1040064K) icms_dc=0 , 0.0069380 secs] [Times: user=0.02 > sys=0.00, > real=0.00 secs] > 41216.710: [GC 41216.710: [ParNew: 70720K->3097K(76672K), 0.0064720 secs] > 368930K->301364K(1040064K) icms_dc=0 , 0.0065740 secs] [Times: user=0.03 > sys=0.01, > real=0.00 secs] > 41216.750: [GC 41216.750: [ParNew: 71117K->3241K(76672K), 0.0063760 secs] > 369384K->301618K(1040064K) icms_dc=0 , 0.0064780 secs] [Times: user=0.03 > sys=0.00, > real=0.00 secs] > > The /var/log/messages from that machine for today were: > > Feb 4 00:08:05 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 00:28:05 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 00:48:05 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 01:08:05 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 01:28:05 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 01:48:05 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 02:08:05 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 02:28:05 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 02:48:05 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 03:08:05 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 03:28:05 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 03:48:05 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 04:08:05 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 04:28:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 04:48:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 05:08:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 05:28:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 05:48:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 06:08:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 06:28:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 06:48:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 07:08:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 07:28:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 07:48:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 08:08:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 08:28:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 08:48:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 09:08:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 09:28:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 09:33:32 tomcat2 /usr/sbin/gpm[3414]: *** info [mice.c(1766)]: > Feb 4 09:33:32 tomcat2 /usr/sbin/gpm[3414]: imps2: Auto-detected > intellimouse PS/2 > Feb 4 09:48:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 10:08:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 10:28:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 10:48:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 11:08:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 11:28:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 11:48:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 12:08:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 12:28:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 12:48:06 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 13:08:07 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 13:28:07 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > Feb 4 13:48:07 tomcat2 -- MARK -- > > I don't see anything here and this file has looked pretty much like this > every failure. > > JAVA_OPTS in catalina.sh are: > > JAVA_OPTS="-Xms1024m -Xmx1024m -XX:PermSize=384m -XX:MaxPermSize=384m > -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC -XX:+CMSIncrementalMode -XX:+PrintGCDetails > -XX:+PrintGCTimeStamps -XX:+HeapDumpOnOutOfMemoryError > -XX:HeapDumpPath=/usr/local/tomcat/logs" > > I checked /usr/local/tomcat/logs but found only the usual files. The > information was in catalina.2010-02-04.log showed our nightly restart of > Tomcat but nothing more recent. There were, however, several entries like > the following that indicate some kind of problem: > > Feb 4, 2010 1:10:03 AM org.apache.catalina.loader.WebappClassLoader > clearThreadLocalMap > SEVERE: A web application created a ThreadLocal with key of type > [java.lang.ThreadLocal] (value [java.lang.threadlo...@68758d7b]) and a > value of type [null] > (value [net.sf.jasperreports.engine.export.legacy.borderoffse...@7b47951c]) > but failed to remove it when the web application was stopped. To prevent a > memory > leak, the ThreadLocal has been forcibly removed. > > Should I be concerned about this problem right now? > > Any ideas? > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Caldarale, Charles R" < > chuck.caldar...@unisys.com> > To: "Tomcat Users List" <users@tomcat.apache.org> > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 12:46 PM > Subject: RE: Tomcat dies suddenly > > > > From: Carl [mailto:c...@etrak-plus.com] >> Subject: Re: Tomcat dies suddenly >> >> if I understand it correctly, Tomcat is (mostly) running in >> the heap and should, therefore, not be requiring more memory >> > > Not necessarily. The real memory used by a Java process can continue to > climb until all the pages assigned to the heap and associated spaces have > actually been touched. That might not happen for quite some time, > especially in PermGen. > > However, that is slowly being eaten away by something. >> I would have expected the usage to flatten out and then >> fluctuate about that number. This implies a memory >> leak someplace in the system. >> > > Probably not. As Dan explained, that's normal file caching behavior. > > - Chuck > > > THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY > MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received > this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its > attachments from all computers. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org > >
