Replying to the correct email this time! +1 However.... We need to add a release note suggesting that traffic stats works best with influxdb version < 1.3.x. As of 1.3.x InfluxDB now returns a 400 response when the client attempts to write points that are outside of the retention policy. When this happens, Traffic Stats seems to hold on to the "old" points and attempts to write them again on the next POST. This causes what is essentially a memory leak in Traffic Stats since it continues to hold onto and tries to write stats that are outside of the retention policy. This may or may not affect a user, depending upon which stats they are trying to write to influxdb. For example, we write the wrap_count to influxdb, this is a stat that does not often change within 24 hours, so we see the memory leak with stats not written on each poll of traffic stats.
In versions < 1.3.x InfluxDB would still not write the point, but it would accept the write request and just drop the points outside of the retention policy on the floor. This is fixed here: https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/pull/1289and will be in the next release of traffic control. Also, we should note that you need to set selinux to "unenforcing" in order to get the build to work, otherwise you fail on permissions erros. You can do this with `setenforce 0` as root. Thanks, Dave On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:50 Dan Kirkwood <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 -- I checked signature, checksums, build, fresh install of traffic_ops. > > -dan > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Hank Beatty <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, of course. How does Friday 11/17 or Monday 20/17 sound? > > > > On 11/14/2017 04:09 PM, Dave Neuman wrote: > >> > >> Hey Hank, > >> It looks like you have the votes you need to pass, but can you leave it > >> open a little longer for those of us that haven't gotten a chance to > test > >> yet? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Dave > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> I’m +1 as well > >>> > >>> Checked out: > >>> - signatures/checksums (Hank is your key signed yet?) > >>> - licenses > >>> - build > >>> > >>> —Eric > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Nov 14, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Nir Sopher <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +1 > >>>> We were able to build traffic-control, install and connect OPs, > >>> > >>> Portal-V2, > >>>> > >>>> Monitor (Golang), Router and Stats. > >>>> Also got a redirect. > >>>> Note that I missed the last commit ("Change cdn.name to > cdn.domain_name > >>> > >>> in > >>>> > >>>> DeliveryServiceInfoForDomainList"), but as far as I see it could not > >>> > >>> break > >>>> > >>>> the installation. > >>>> Nir > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Thanks Matt- > >>>>> I found another LEGAL ticket (https://issues.apache.org/ > >>>>> jira/browse/LEGAL-330) based on a Google version of the PATENTS file > >>> > >>> this > >>>>> > >>>>> time. > >>>>> > >>>>> Looks like things are OK to use then. > >>>>> > >>>>> —Eric > >>>>> > >>>>> On Nov 14, 2017, at 12:50 PM, Mills, Matthew < > [email protected] > >>> > >>> < > >>>>> > >>>>> mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> FYI, Go itself has the same file > >>>>> > >>>>> https://github.com/golang/go/blob/master/PATENTS > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 11/14/17, 10:36:43 AM, "Eric Friedrich (efriedri)" < > >>> > >>> [email protected]> > >>>>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I’ve been going through licensing for the 2.1 release and found > this > >>>>> file: > >>>>> ./traffic_stats/vendor/golang.org/x/net/PATENTS<http:// > >>>>> golang.org/x/net/PATENTS> > >>>>> > >>>>> This looks like it places some of the same restrictions that > caused > >>> > >>> the > >>>>> > >>>>> whole Facebook React.js and rocksDb controversy a few months ago. > >>>>> Fun reading here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-303 > >>>>> There’s some in depth discussion of the detailed Facebook > license, I > >>>>> can’t even begin to speculate how that compares to this Google > >>> > >>> conditional > >>>>> > >>>>> patent grant. > >>>>> > >>>>> We can see what the IPMC/Legal thinks or maybe just remove the > code? > >>>>> > >>>>> —Eric > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > >
