Robert, Thanks for returning my email, the strange thing is, this core dump was happened the first time after I installed the 5.2.1 and patch for snmptrapd to fix the memory leak problem, the snmptrpad can not hold for a day (traps comes in rapidly) then core dump, however, after that I restarted the snmptrpd it was soaking there for a week (same volume) then I restarted it and soaking another week, it just does not happen now (my custom one). I am afraid this may be a time-bomb in the production. (in fact, I am updating the software in production this weekend)
<< Does this still happen consistently? >> It only happened once. << Does it happen if you use the default log format, instead of your custom one? >> I am always use the custom one. I want to recreate the core dump. Please advise. Thanks. Lan -----Original Message----- From: Robert Story [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 11:10 AM To: Wu, Lan, ALABS Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: snmptrapd Core Dump ! On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:08:01 -0500 Wu, wrote: WLA> -----Original Message----- WLA> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:57:41 -0500 Wu, wrote: WLA> WLA> I was away for few days, Today, I check the snmptrapd, it core dump WLA> WLA> less a day (6/21 14:01:54 to 6/22 11:31), although the memory did not WLA> WLA> increase, but it is still core dump in the same place, please see the WLA> WLA> attachment. So I am guessing the memory leak may be not the root WLA> WLA> cause of the core dump ?? WLA> WLA> > 1333 sprintf(str, "%ld", *var->val.integer); WLA> Thanks for returning my email, I still keep the old core file here is the WLA> outcome: WLA> WLA> (gdb) print *var WLA> $2 = {next_variable = 0x302b8, name = 0x30078, name_length = 10, WLA> type = 5 '\005', val = {integer = 0x0, string = 0x0, objid = 0x0, WLA> bitstring = 0x0, counter64 = 0x0, floatVal = 0x0, doubleVal = 0x0}, WLA> (gdb) print var->val.integer WLA> $3 = (long int *) 0x0 That's what I expected. But I don't know why it would happen. A NULL val pointer would seem to indicated a failed malloc, but for an integer it should always use the internal buffer instead of allocating memory. Does this still happen consistenly? Does it happen if you use the default log format, instead of your custom one? -- NOTE: messages sent directly to me, instead of the lists, will be deleted unless they are requests for paid consulting services. Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie Support: <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-users> You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt77&alloc_id492&op=click _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-users mailing list [email protected] Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
