Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Memory issue #63

Open
olivierHa opened this issue May 11, 2015 · 4 comments
Open

Memory issue #63

olivierHa opened this issue May 11, 2015 · 4 comments

Comments

@olivierHa
Copy link
Member

I think there is a memory leak with the upstream version of Livestatus.
LS broker module was stable around 1Go with my previous version (see performance issue, ie before the threading model) for more than 1 year, now it can increase up to 12Go and more ( I reloaded it at 12Go ...)

@mohierf
Copy link

mohierf commented May 11, 2015

We noticed the same problem with @ddurieux on an other module ... and there is also this issue shinken-monitoring/mod-webui#128

A more global memory leak problem in the new Shinken framework ?

@olivierHa
Copy link
Member Author

Only the PID of the Livestatus module was eating memory.
I took an old livestatus revision (but with shinken fmw 2.4) to be sure.

2015-05-11 18:18 GMT+02:00 Frédéric MOHIER [email protected]:

We noticed the same problem with @ddurieux https://github.com/ddurieux
on an other module ... and there is also this issue
shinken-monitoring/mod-webui#128
shinken-monitoring/mod-webui#128

A more global memory leak problem in the new Shinken framework ?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#63 (comment)
.

@gst
Copy link
Contributor

gst commented May 12, 2015

@olivierHa :

I think there is a memory leak with the upstream version of Livestatus.

:D you mean since 1.4.2 ? (more precisely since fe3f7ad )

if yes then maybe the gc.collect() ought to be useful in a way or another (for that kind of problematic) !?? (while theoretically it shouldn't change anything, though..) :°@
but of course it ought not to be useful for perfs, we've seen that, given it's previous call frequency... (/o)
anyway : that's first has all to do with some specific(s) item(s) from the config you use, in fact, 'cause about all & everything, from the config perspective (but not only), is managed unconsistentlydifferently in the code, here, there, and overthere too ;)

first thing you can try : re-add gc.collect() somewhere in the code ! yeah :D ok but not at the same place than previously ;°)

can you say when occurs the increase of memory consumption in the process ? when you have a restart of arbiter, that's it ?? if yes, I hope so, then re-adding gc.collect() in the broker somewhere after when a new config is received maybe could help..

but I won't be able to help more for now guys..

@olivierHa
Copy link
Member Author

@gst, yes I mean 1.4.2
ddurieux told me on IRC that he is tracking a memory leak too, so I am
waiting for his patch/feedback to see if our issues are linked.
Otherwise, I will dig to see when this memory leak is happening.

2015-05-12 21:13 GMT+02:00 Grégory Starck [email protected]:

@olivierHa https://github.com/olivierHa :

I think there is a memory leak with the upstream version of Livestatus.

:D you mean since 1.4.2 ? (more precisely since fe3f7ad
fe3f7ad
)

if yes then maybe the gc.collect() ought to be useful in a way or another
(for that kind of problematic) !?? (while theoretically it shouldn't
change anything, though..) :°@
but of course it ought not to be useful for perfs, we've seen that, given
it's previous call frequency... (/o)
anyway : that's first has all to do with some specific(s) item(s) from the
config you use, in fact, 'cause about all & everything, from the config
perspective (but not only), is managed unconsistentlydifferently in the
code, here, there, and overthere too ;)

first thing you can try : re-add gc.collect() somewhere in the code ! yeah
:D ok but not at the same place than previously ;°)

can you say when occurs the increase of memory consumption in the process
? when you have a restart of arbiter, that's it ?? if yes, I hope so, then
re-adding gc.collect() in the broker somewhere after when a new config is
received maybe could help..

but I won't be able to help more for now guys..


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#63 (comment)
.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants