2017-01-23 15:30 GMT+01:00 Rainer Gerhards <[email protected]>:
> 2017-01-23 15:26 GMT+01:00 mostolog--- via rsyslog < > [email protected]>: > >> >> Considering the below explanation, an idle (not going to receive >>> more messages the next 7 days) imrelp rsyslog...shouldn't memory >>> be freed from current 512MB usage in the near future? >>> >>> >>> For the scenario I have described: no, as long as the high address >>> memory block is allocated, nothing is freed. Not even after 70 days of >>> idleness ;-) >>> >>> >>> You mentioned forcing each 100.000 messages, but that's never >>> gonna happen if we are still at 20k, and no more messages coming. >>> >>> >>> right >>> >> Isn't that an undesired behavior? >> A process should release unused/unneeded memory, shouldn't it? (Maybe not >> "immediately", but sooner than "ever"!) >> >> > That's a question you need to ask the GNU libc developers, if you really > care for it. As I wrote, I just call a helper function, which in theory > should never be needed to be called. So rsyslog is already doing more than > what it is supposed to do. Plus, this example is totally theoretical. We > use that function call since around 8 years, and never had a problem > (remember that your case is an actual memory leak!). We very very very > occasionally had problems in the years before we called the helper. > ... and even if the helper would have been called in that scenario, nothing would change. If high mem is still alloced (and it is of course if no new processing happens), you cannot reduce the sbrk(). Rainer _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE THAT.
