> On Nov 10, 2015, at 2:50 AM, Al Slater wrote:
>
> On 10/11/2015 07:40, Al Slater wrote:
>> It seems to me that ilbd_run_probe just needs to call
>> posix_spawn_file_actions_destroy appropriately.
>
> And probably posix_spawnattr_destroy as well?
Wow! Great catch. I'll
On 10/11/15 15:26, Dan McDonald wrote:
>
>> On Nov 10, 2015, at 2:50 AM, Al Slater wrote:
>>
>> On 10/11/2015 07:40, Al Slater wrote:
>>> It seems to me that ilbd_run_probe just needs to call
>>> posix_spawn_file_actions_destroy appropriately.
>>
>> And probably
Hi Dan,
On 06/11/2015 18:31, Dan McDonald wrote:
You said you had a test box, right?
Yes.
Can you:
- Disable UMEM_DEBUG
- RESTART the service.
- IMMEDIATELY after restart do pmap, and do pmap once per (sec, 10 sec,
something) to see how it grows?
Attached is a compressed file with 5hrs
On 09/11/15 15:43, Dan McDonald wrote:
>
>> On Nov 9, 2015, at 8:39 AM, Al Slater wrote:
>>
>> Attached is a compressed file with 5hrs or so of 10s pmaps.
>> Hopefully not too big for the list.
>
> It compressed nicely. I'm noticing a pattern:
>
> Mon Nov 9 08:21:45 UTC
On 05/11/2015 14:57, Dan McDonald wrote:
On Nov 5, 2015, at 6:38 AM, Al Slater wrote:
I have the 4Gb core file. Is there anything useful I can extract from
it to try and spot where the problem is?
Your one ::findleaks showed nothing. Did your 4GB corefile have
> On Nov 6, 2015, at 3:11 AM, Al Slater wrote:
>
> On 05/11/2015 14:57, Dan McDonald wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 5, 2015, at 6:38 AM, Al Slater wrote:
>>>
>>> I have the 4Gb core file. Is there anything useful I can extract from
>>> it to try and spot
> On Nov 6, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Dan McDonald wrote:
>
> Lots of LARGE anonymous mappings. I wonder why that happened? I'll dig into
> that a bit more.
pmap(1) works even better on running processes. Could you run, say "pmap -xa
`pgrep ilbd`" on your running machine?
Dan
On 06/11/15 14:51, Dan McDonald wrote:
>
>> On Nov 6, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Dan McDonald wrote:
>>
>> Lots of LARGE anonymous mappings. I wonder why that happened? I'll dig into
>> that a bit more.
>
> pmap(1) works even better on running processes. Could you run, say "pmap
> On Nov 6, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Al Slater wrote:
>
>
> 7D80 1048576 1048576 1048576 - rwx--[ anon ]
> BDA0 524288 524288 524288 - rwx--[ anon ]
> DDC0 262144 262144 262144 - rwx--[ anon ]
> EDE0 131072 131072 131072
> On Nov 6, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Dan McDonald wrote:
>
>> On Nov 6, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Al Slater wrote:
>>
>>
>> 7D80 1048576 1048576 1048576 - rwx--[ anon ]
>> BDA0 524288 524288 524288 - rwx--[ anon ]
>> DDC0 262144
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015, Dan McDonald wrote:
More huge anonymous mappings (1G, 512MB, 256MB, 128MB).
I don't know pmap as well as I should. I don't see anything in the
man page to give me further insight into why these chunks of memory
are being eaten.
It is pretty common for memory allocators
To the mailing list as well...
On 22/10/2015 09:43, Al Slater wrote:
> On 21/10/2015 17:35, Dan McDonald wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:08 AM, Al Slater
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am running omnios r151014 on a couple of machines with a couple
>>> of zones each.
Hi Dan,
On 05/11/2015 14:57, Dan McDonald wrote:
On Nov 5, 2015, at 6:38 AM, Al Slater wrote:
I have the 4Gb core file. Is there anything useful I can extract
from it to try and spot where the problem is?
Your one ::findleaks showed nothing. Did your 4GB corefile
> On Nov 5, 2015, at 6:38 AM, Al Slater wrote:
>
> I have the 4Gb core file. Is there anything useful I can extract from
> it to try and spot where the problem is?
Your one ::findleaks showed nothing. Did your 4GB corefile have ::findleaks
show nothing as well?
Le 22/10/15 10:43, Al Slater a écrit :
> I am seeing kernel memory consumption increasing as well, but that may
> be a different issue. The ilbd process memory is definitely growing.
>
this is indeed probably a different issue, but it would be useful to create a
thread
on illumos discuss as
On 21/10/2015 17:35, Dan McDonald wrote:
On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:08 AM, Al Slater
wrote:
Hi,
I am running omnios r151014 on a couple of machines with a couple
of zones each. 1 zone runs apache as an SSL reverse proxy, the
other runs ILB for load balancing web to app tier
Al Slater writes:
> On 21/10/2015 17:35, Dan McDonald wrote:
>>
>> That should enable user-level memory debugging. If you get a
>> coredump, save it and share it. If you don't and the ilb daemon
>> keeps running, eventually please:
>>
>> gcore `pgrep ilbd`
>>
>> and share THAT corefile. You
> On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:08 AM, Al Slater wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am running omnios r151014 on a couple of machines with a couple of zones
> each. 1 zone runs apache as an SSL reverse proxy, the other runs ILB for
> load balancing web to app tier connections.
>
> I noticed
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Dan McDonald wrote:
You can use svccfg(1M) to enable user-level memory debugging on ilb. It may
cause the ilb daemon to dump core. (And you're just noticing this in the
process, not kernel memory consumption, correct?)
As root:
svcadm disable -t ilb
Hi,
I am running omnios r151014 on a couple of machines with a couple of
zones each. 1 zone runs apache as an SSL reverse proxy, the other runs
ILB for load balancing web to app tier connections.
I noticed that in the ILB zone, the ilbd process memory grows to about
2Gb. Restarting ILB
20 matches
Mail list logo