Thanks very much for the replies. The developers reported back that the crashes were caused by a report getting repeatedly called that was returning massive amounts of data to the browser. Sounds a bit odd to me, but I don't have any more data at the moment. When I get more, I'll report back here.
Many thanks again for the assistance. It's much appreciated. It's comforting to know there's such capable support here on the mailing list. Brian -----Original Message----- From: AOLserver Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gustaf Neumann Sent: 05 October 2007 22:12 To: AOLSERVER@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] More on lost of memory of aolserver process Hi Brian, Fenton, Brian schrieb: > I hope nobody minds me bumping this old thread. Gustaf, I used your script on > a production server that appears to be leaking memory. Can you please help me > interpret it? > > This was the total at startup > TOTAL: pid 10686 vsz 592489 namespaces 543 vars 96 var_bytes 10118 > array_elements 313 cmds 266 procs 4511 > > then just before the crash > TOTAL: pid 10686 vsz 1112509 namespaces 543 vars 86 var_bytes 8771 > array_elements 256 cmds 266 procs 4469 > unable to alloc 495960171 bytes > well the script was written to detect, if someone adds variables into namespaces, or appends permanently to variables, which are not reclaimed during cleanup of a connection. This is what i called "application level leaks". in your case, this does not seem to be the case (no additional name spaces or vars, all figures are rather less than at start-time). The growth in vsz is not good (but not unusual) but the size of the alloc is something to worry. Growth of vsz might be due to fragmentation of memory (zippy is optimized for minimal locks, not minimal memory footprint) or due to the number of threads you are using (maybe there were less threads at startup time than on crash time?) > Would you consider the less than double "vsz" figure a significant change? Is > it of any significance that the other values decreased (vars var_bytes etc)? > So would this suggest a C-level or application-level problem? > The main question is: why does it try to allocate 500MB? what was the last request? do you use some image libraries? > The strange thing about this particular case is that the developers tell me > that "nothing changed" on this server in quite some time. And yet it > mysteriously started crashing last week. > if the allocation of 500MB sounds for your apps unusual to you, i would suggest to try to figure out, what happens here in the last request in deail. Hope this helps -gustaf neumann -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
