Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
Thank you very much for the answer. Regards. -Mensaje original- De: Toshihiro Kitagawa [mailto:kitag...@sraoss.co.jp] Enviado el: lunes, 03 de octubre de 2011 03:23 Para: Lazaro Rubén García Martinez CC: Glyn Astill; pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Asunto: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi Lazaro, On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:40:59 -0430 Lazaro Rubén García Martinez lgarc...@vnz.uci.cu wrote: Thanks for the answer, One question, the patch proposed for some memory leaks can be applied in Pgpool-II 3.1. The patch is not applicable to pgpool-II 3.1 without editing. I've attached the same patch for pgpool-II 3.1. It is unnecessary except for raw mode to apply these patches. Regards. -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan Regards. -Mensaje original- De: Toshihiro Kitagawa [mailto:kitag...@sraoss.co.jp] Enviado el: viernes, 30 de septiembre de 2011 12:18 Para: Lazaro Rubén García Martinez CC: Glyn Astill; pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Asunto: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi Lazaro, On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:44:41 -0430 Lazaro Rubén García Martinez lgarc...@vnz.uci.cu wrote: Hi all, Is there an estimated date for release Pgpool-II version 3.0.5 and 3.1.1?. pgpool-II 3.0.5 is going to be released by the end of October. The release time of pgpool-II 3.1.1 is undecided now. Regards. -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan Regards. -Mensaje original- De: pgpool-general-boun...@pgfoundry.org [mailto:pgpool-general-boun...@pgfoundry.org] En nombre de Toshihiro Kitagawa Enviado el: miércoles, 28 de septiembre de 2011 10:38 Para: Glyn Astill CC: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Asunto: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi Glyn, Thank you for your help. This problem will be fixed in next minor version up(3.0.5/3.1.1). -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:20:51 +0100 (BST) Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Hi Toshihiro, I can confirm that patch works and we no longer see the memory leak. Thanks Glyn - Original Message - From: Toshihiro Kitagawa kitag...@sraoss.co.jp To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk; takizo paul...@takizo.com Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011, 10:57 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi Glyn, takizo, I created a patch to fix a massive memory leak of raw mode. The patch which was posted before by Yoshiyuki seems correct. However, I think it's better to call pool_query_context_destroy() than free_parser(). Would you try an attached patch? The patch is for V3.0_STABLE branch, but it's applicable to pgpool-II 3.0.x too. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:14:41 +0900 Toshihiro Kitagawa kitag...@sraoss.co.jp wrote: Hi Glyn, takizo, Sorry for delay. I fixed some memory leaks in pgpool-II 3.1 and V3_0_STABLE. But I guess memory leaks are remaining as you say. Surely, free_parser() which was commented out might be problem. However, I think simply uncommenting leads unexpected new problem. So we have to fix those carefully. I will investigate and fix memory problems which was posted to this ML from now on. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:22:50 +0800 takizo paul...@takizo.com wrote: Glyn, Surely, I will try 2.3.3 :) Thanks a lot -- Paul Ooi On Sep 8, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, We are currently using Pgpool-II 2.3.3 and it has been really stable for us. Unless you're after a specific feature in Pgpool-II 3.x you could perhaps try it? So far I've had no luck with the patch posted by Yoshiyuki, even with that patch there is still a massive memory leak in 3.0.4. It would appear that pool_proto_modules.c has lots commented out calls to free_parser(), many more than the single case that Yoshiyuki uncommented with his patch, so either there is a bit of a mess there that needs sorting out by someone who knows the overall logic, or the issue is elsewhere. Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.comTo: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.ukCc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 1:48Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Gyln, Thanks. I happened to read through the thread after posted the mail. It seems like I have to stick with Pgpool I until the developer is free
Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
Thanks for the answer, One question, the patch proposed for some memory leaks can be applied in Pgpool-II 3.1. Regards. -Mensaje original- De: Toshihiro Kitagawa [mailto:kitag...@sraoss.co.jp] Enviado el: viernes, 30 de septiembre de 2011 12:18 Para: Lazaro Rubén García Martinez CC: Glyn Astill; pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Asunto: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi Lazaro, On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:44:41 -0430 Lazaro Rubén García Martinez lgarc...@vnz.uci.cu wrote: Hi all, Is there an estimated date for release Pgpool-II version 3.0.5 and 3.1.1?. pgpool-II 3.0.5 is going to be released by the end of October. The release time of pgpool-II 3.1.1 is undecided now. Regards. -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan Regards. -Mensaje original- De: pgpool-general-boun...@pgfoundry.org [mailto:pgpool-general-boun...@pgfoundry.org] En nombre de Toshihiro Kitagawa Enviado el: miércoles, 28 de septiembre de 2011 10:38 Para: Glyn Astill CC: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Asunto: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi Glyn, Thank you for your help. This problem will be fixed in next minor version up(3.0.5/3.1.1). -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:20:51 +0100 (BST) Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Hi Toshihiro, I can confirm that patch works and we no longer see the memory leak. Thanks Glyn - Original Message - From: Toshihiro Kitagawa kitag...@sraoss.co.jp To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk; takizo paul...@takizo.com Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011, 10:57 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi Glyn, takizo, I created a patch to fix a massive memory leak of raw mode. The patch which was posted before by Yoshiyuki seems correct. However, I think it's better to call pool_query_context_destroy() than free_parser(). Would you try an attached patch? The patch is for V3.0_STABLE branch, but it's applicable to pgpool-II 3.0.x too. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:14:41 +0900 Toshihiro Kitagawa kitag...@sraoss.co.jp wrote: Hi Glyn, takizo, Sorry for delay. I fixed some memory leaks in pgpool-II 3.1 and V3_0_STABLE. But I guess memory leaks are remaining as you say. Surely, free_parser() which was commented out might be problem. However, I think simply uncommenting leads unexpected new problem. So we have to fix those carefully. I will investigate and fix memory problems which was posted to this ML from now on. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:22:50 +0800 takizo paul...@takizo.com wrote: Glyn, Surely, I will try 2.3.3 :) Thanks a lot -- Paul Ooi On Sep 8, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, We are currently using Pgpool-II 2.3.3 and it has been really stable for us. Unless you're after a specific feature in Pgpool-II 3.x you could perhaps try it? So far I've had no luck with the patch posted by Yoshiyuki, even with that patch there is still a massive memory leak in 3.0.4. It would appear that pool_proto_modules.c has lots commented out calls to free_parser(), many more than the single case that Yoshiyuki uncommented with his patch, so either there is a bit of a mess there that needs sorting out by someone who knows the overall logic, or the issue is elsewhere. Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 1:48 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Gyln, Thanks. I happened to read through the thread after posted the mail. It seems like I have to stick with Pgpool I until the developer is free. -- takizo On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, Yes this bug has been seen by numerous people on the list, Yoshiyuki Asaba has posted a patch, however there has been no response from the main Pgpool II developers. I did ask a few times, and also asked if we'd be better testing 3.1, but alas still no response. I can only assume the devs are busy or otherwise indisposed. See the thread below for the patch. http://www.mail-archive.com/pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org/msg03141.html Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Wednesday, 7
Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
Hi all, Is there an estimated date for release Pgpool-II version 3.0.5 and 3.1.1?. Regards. -Mensaje original- De: pgpool-general-boun...@pgfoundry.org [mailto:pgpool-general-boun...@pgfoundry.org] En nombre de Toshihiro Kitagawa Enviado el: miércoles, 28 de septiembre de 2011 10:38 Para: Glyn Astill CC: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Asunto: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi Glyn, Thank you for your help. This problem will be fixed in next minor version up(3.0.5/3.1.1). -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:20:51 +0100 (BST) Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Hi Toshihiro, I can confirm that patch works and we no longer see the memory leak. Thanks Glyn - Original Message - From: Toshihiro Kitagawa kitag...@sraoss.co.jp To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk; takizo paul...@takizo.com Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011, 10:57 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi Glyn, takizo, I created a patch to fix a massive memory leak of raw mode. The patch which was posted before by Yoshiyuki seems correct. However, I think it's better to call pool_query_context_destroy() than free_parser(). Would you try an attached patch? The patch is for V3.0_STABLE branch, but it's applicable to pgpool-II 3.0.x too. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:14:41 +0900 Toshihiro Kitagawa kitag...@sraoss.co.jp wrote: Hi Glyn, takizo, Sorry for delay. I fixed some memory leaks in pgpool-II 3.1 and V3_0_STABLE. But I guess memory leaks are remaining as you say. Surely, free_parser() which was commented out might be problem. However, I think simply uncommenting leads unexpected new problem. So we have to fix those carefully. I will investigate and fix memory problems which was posted to this ML from now on. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:22:50 +0800 takizo paul...@takizo.com wrote: Glyn, Surely, I will try 2.3.3 :) Thanks a lot -- Paul Ooi On Sep 8, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, We are currently using Pgpool-II 2.3.3 and it has been really stable for us. Unless you're after a specific feature in Pgpool-II 3.x you could perhaps try it? So far I've had no luck with the patch posted by Yoshiyuki, even with that patch there is still a massive memory leak in 3.0.4. It would appear that pool_proto_modules.c has lots commented out calls to free_parser(), many more than the single case that Yoshiyuki uncommented with his patch, so either there is a bit of a mess there that needs sorting out by someone who knows the overall logic, or the issue is elsewhere. Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 1:48 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Gyln, Thanks. I happened to read through the thread after posted the mail. It seems like I have to stick with Pgpool I until the developer is free. -- takizo On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, Yes this bug has been seen by numerous people on the list, Yoshiyuki Asaba has posted a patch, however there has been no response from the main Pgpool II developers. I did ask a few times, and also asked if we'd be better testing 3.1, but alas still no response. I can only assume the devs are busy or otherwise indisposed. See the thread below for the patch. http://www.mail-archive.com/pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org/msg03141.html Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 15:02 Subject: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi all, Today I have upgraded Pgpool I to Pgpool II. And I had to roll back to Pgpool I due to memory hunger issue. My server is configured with PostgreSQL 8.2, running on FreeBSD 8.2 Intel Xeon box with 4 CPUs with Quad Core, total of 16 cores Memory with 24GB * While running on Pgpool I I do no have memory hunger issue. On postgresql.conf, I have max_connections=200 and shared_buffers=2GB. Most of the time, I have 8GB memory in used and 10GB Free and some in cached. Everything run just fine and perfectly good. * I tried upgraded to Pgpool II Same config on postgresql.conf, when I started PgPool II (3.0.4), my active memory started increasing
Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
Hi Lazaro, On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:44:41 -0430 Lazaro Rubén García Martinez lgarc...@vnz.uci.cu wrote: Hi all, Is there an estimated date for release Pgpool-II version 3.0.5 and 3.1.1?. pgpool-II 3.0.5 is going to be released by the end of October. The release time of pgpool-II 3.1.1 is undecided now. Regards. -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan Regards. -Mensaje original- De: pgpool-general-boun...@pgfoundry.org [mailto:pgpool-general-boun...@pgfoundry.org] En nombre de Toshihiro Kitagawa Enviado el: miércoles, 28 de septiembre de 2011 10:38 Para: Glyn Astill CC: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Asunto: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi Glyn, Thank you for your help. This problem will be fixed in next minor version up(3.0.5/3.1.1). -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:20:51 +0100 (BST) Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Hi Toshihiro, I can confirm that patch works and we no longer see the memory leak. Thanks Glyn - Original Message - From: Toshihiro Kitagawa kitag...@sraoss.co.jp To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk; takizo paul...@takizo.com Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011, 10:57 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi Glyn, takizo, I created a patch to fix a massive memory leak of raw mode. The patch which was posted before by Yoshiyuki seems correct. However, I think it's better to call pool_query_context_destroy() than free_parser(). Would you try an attached patch? The patch is for V3.0_STABLE branch, but it's applicable to pgpool-II 3.0.x too. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:14:41 +0900 Toshihiro Kitagawa kitag...@sraoss.co.jp wrote: Hi Glyn, takizo, Sorry for delay. I fixed some memory leaks in pgpool-II 3.1 and V3_0_STABLE. But I guess memory leaks are remaining as you say. Surely, free_parser() which was commented out might be problem. However, I think simply uncommenting leads unexpected new problem. So we have to fix those carefully. I will investigate and fix memory problems which was posted to this ML from now on. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:22:50 +0800 takizo paul...@takizo.com wrote: Glyn, Surely, I will try 2.3.3 :) Thanks a lot -- Paul Ooi On Sep 8, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, We are currently using Pgpool-II 2.3.3 and it has been really stable for us. Unless you're after a specific feature in Pgpool-II 3.x you could perhaps try it? So far I've had no luck with the patch posted by Yoshiyuki, even with that patch there is still a massive memory leak in 3.0.4. It would appear that pool_proto_modules.c has lots commented out calls to free_parser(), many more than the single case that Yoshiyuki uncommented with his patch, so either there is a bit of a mess there that needs sorting out by someone who knows the overall logic, or the issue is elsewhere. Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 1:48 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Gyln, Thanks. I happened to read through the thread after posted the mail. It seems like I have to stick with Pgpool I until the developer is free. -- takizo On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, Yes this bug has been seen by numerous people on the list, Yoshiyuki Asaba has posted a patch, however there has been no response from the main Pgpool II developers. I did ask a few times, and also asked if we'd be better testing 3.1, but alas still no response. I can only assume the devs are busy or otherwise indisposed. See the thread below for the patch. http://www.mail-archive.com/pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org/msg03141.html Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 15:02 Subject: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi all, Today I have upgraded Pgpool I to Pgpool II. And I had to roll back to Pgpool I due to memory hunger issue. My server is configured with PostgreSQL 8.2, running on FreeBSD 8.2 Intel Xeon box with 4 CPUs with Quad Core, total of 16 cores Memory
Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
Hi Toshihiro, I can confirm that patch works and we no longer see the memory leak. Thanks Glyn - Original Message - From: Toshihiro Kitagawa kitag...@sraoss.co.jp To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk; takizo paul...@takizo.com Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011, 10:57 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi Glyn, takizo, I created a patch to fix a massive memory leak of raw mode. The patch which was posted before by Yoshiyuki seems correct. However, I think it's better to call pool_query_context_destroy() than free_parser(). Would you try an attached patch? The patch is for V3.0_STABLE branch, but it's applicable to pgpool-II 3.0.x too. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:14:41 +0900 Toshihiro Kitagawa kitag...@sraoss.co.jp wrote: Hi Glyn, takizo, Sorry for delay. I fixed some memory leaks in pgpool-II 3.1 and V3_0_STABLE. But I guess memory leaks are remaining as you say. Surely, free_parser() which was commented out might be problem. However, I think simply uncommenting leads unexpected new problem. So we have to fix those carefully. I will investigate and fix memory problems which was posted to this ML from now on. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:22:50 +0800 takizo paul...@takizo.com wrote: Glyn, Surely, I will try 2.3.3 :) Thanks a lot -- Paul Ooi On Sep 8, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, We are currently using Pgpool-II 2.3.3 and it has been really stable for us. Unless you're after a specific feature in Pgpool-II 3.x you could perhaps try it? So far I've had no luck with the patch posted by Yoshiyuki, even with that patch there is still a massive memory leak in 3.0.4. It would appear that pool_proto_modules.c has lots commented out calls to free_parser(), many more than the single case that Yoshiyuki uncommented with his patch, so either there is a bit of a mess there that needs sorting out by someone who knows the overall logic, or the issue is elsewhere. Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 1:48 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Gyln, Thanks. I happened to read through the thread after posted the mail. It seems like I have to stick with Pgpool I until the developer is free. -- takizo On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, Yes this bug has been seen by numerous people on the list, Yoshiyuki Asaba has posted a patch, however there has been no response from the main Pgpool II developers. I did ask a few times, and also asked if we'd be better testing 3.1, but alas still no response. I can only assume the devs are busy or otherwise indisposed. See the thread below for the patch. http://www.mail-archive.com/pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org/msg03141.html Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 15:02 Subject: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi all, Today I have upgraded Pgpool I to Pgpool II. And I had to roll back to Pgpool I due to memory hunger issue. My server is configured with PostgreSQL 8.2, running on FreeBSD 8.2 Intel Xeon box with 4 CPUs with Quad Core, total of 16 cores Memory with 24GB * While running on Pgpool I I do no have memory hunger issue. On postgresql.conf, I have max_connections=200 and shared_buffers=2GB. Most of the time, I have 8GB memory in used and 10GB Free and some in cached. Everything run just fine and perfectly good. * I tried upgraded to Pgpool II Same config on postgresql.conf, when I started PgPool II (3.0.4), my active memory started increasing and it didn't drop at all. I left the server running and after about 20 minutes, 20GB memory is in used, ended up it used swap memory because running out of memory. I run a reload/restart on pgpool, I gained back 14GB of free memory, and slowly it started to taken up those freed memory in active memory after about 15-20 minutes. I tried to bring down max_connections and shared_buffers value, and the memory doesn't stop taking up. It still slowly gaining all the memory it wants. Has anyone having that problem as well? I hope I can find some answer here :) Wanted to try out pgpool II performance but this problem is the stopper for now. Hope to get feedback from gurus in the house. Thanks! -- takizo
Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
Hi Glyn, Thank you for your help. This problem will be fixed in next minor version up(3.0.5/3.1.1). -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:20:51 +0100 (BST) Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Hi Toshihiro, I can confirm that patch works and we no longer see the memory leak. Thanks Glyn - Original Message - From: Toshihiro Kitagawa kitag...@sraoss.co.jp To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk; takizo paul...@takizo.com Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011, 10:57 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi Glyn, takizo, I created a patch to fix a massive memory leak of raw mode. The patch which was posted before by Yoshiyuki seems correct. However, I think it's better to call pool_query_context_destroy() than free_parser(). Would you try an attached patch? The patch is for V3.0_STABLE branch, but it's applicable to pgpool-II 3.0.x too. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:14:41 +0900 Toshihiro Kitagawa kitag...@sraoss.co.jp wrote: Hi Glyn, takizo, Sorry for delay. I fixed some memory leaks in pgpool-II 3.1 and V3_0_STABLE. But I guess memory leaks are remaining as you say. Surely, free_parser() which was commented out might be problem. However, I think simply uncommenting leads unexpected new problem. So we have to fix those carefully. I will investigate and fix memory problems which was posted to this ML from now on. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:22:50 +0800 takizo paul...@takizo.com wrote: Glyn, Surely, I will try 2.3.3 :) Thanks a lot -- Paul Ooi On Sep 8, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, We are currently using Pgpool-II 2.3.3 and it has been really stable for us. Unless you're after a specific feature in Pgpool-II 3.x you could perhaps try it? So far I've had no luck with the patch posted by Yoshiyuki, even with that patch there is still a massive memory leak in 3.0.4. It would appear that pool_proto_modules.c has lots commented out calls to free_parser(), many more than the single case that Yoshiyuki uncommented with his patch, so either there is a bit of a mess there that needs sorting out by someone who knows the overall logic, or the issue is elsewhere. Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 1:48 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Gyln, Thanks. I happened to read through the thread after posted the mail. It seems like I have to stick with Pgpool I until the developer is free. -- takizo On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, Yes this bug has been seen by numerous people on the list, Yoshiyuki Asaba has posted a patch, however there has been no response from the main Pgpool II developers. I did ask a few times, and also asked if we'd be better testing 3.1, but alas still no response. I can only assume the devs are busy or otherwise indisposed. See the thread below for the patch. http://www.mail-archive.com/pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org/msg03141.html Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 15:02 Subject: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi all, Today I have upgraded Pgpool I to Pgpool II. And I had to roll back to Pgpool I due to memory hunger issue. My server is configured with PostgreSQL 8.2, running on FreeBSD 8.2 Intel Xeon box with 4 CPUs with Quad Core, total of 16 cores Memory with 24GB * While running on Pgpool I I do no have memory hunger issue. On postgresql.conf, I have max_connections=200 and shared_buffers=2GB. Most of the time, I have 8GB memory in used and 10GB Free and some in cached. Everything run just fine and perfectly good. * I tried upgraded to Pgpool II Same config on postgresql.conf, when I started PgPool II (3.0.4), my active memory started increasing and it didn't drop at all. I left the server running and after about 20 minutes, 20GB memory is in used, ended up it used swap memory because running out of memory. I run a reload/restart on pgpool, I gained back 14GB of free memory, and slowly it started to taken up those freed memory in active memory after about 15-20 minutes. I tried to bring down
Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
Hi Glyn, takizo, I created a patch to fix a massive memory leak of raw mode. The patch which was posted before by Yoshiyuki seems correct. However, I think it's better to call pool_query_context_destroy() than free_parser(). Would you try an attached patch? The patch is for V3.0_STABLE branch, but it's applicable to pgpool-II 3.0.x too. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:14:41 +0900 Toshihiro Kitagawa kitag...@sraoss.co.jp wrote: Hi Glyn, takizo, Sorry for delay. I fixed some memory leaks in pgpool-II 3.1 and V3_0_STABLE. But I guess memory leaks are remaining as you say. Surely, free_parser() which was commented out might be problem. However, I think simply uncommenting leads unexpected new problem. So we have to fix those carefully. I will investigate and fix memory problems which was posted to this ML from now on. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:22:50 +0800 takizo paul...@takizo.com wrote: Glyn, Surely, I will try 2.3.3 :) Thanks a lot -- Paul Ooi On Sep 8, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, We are currently using Pgpool-II 2.3.3 and it has been really stable for us. Unless you're after a specific feature in Pgpool-II 3.x you could perhaps try it? So far I've had no luck with the patch posted by Yoshiyuki, even with that patch there is still a massive memory leak in 3.0.4. It would appear that pool_proto_modules.c has lots commented out calls to free_parser(), many more than the single case that Yoshiyuki uncommented with his patch, so either there is a bit of a mess there that needs sorting out by someone who knows the overall logic, or the issue is elsewhere. Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 1:48 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Gyln, Thanks. I happened to read through the thread after posted the mail. It seems like I have to stick with Pgpool I until the developer is free. -- takizo On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, Yes this bug has been seen by numerous people on the list, Yoshiyuki Asaba has posted a patch, however there has been no response from the main Pgpool II developers. I did ask a few times, and also asked if we'd be better testing 3.1, but alas still no response. I can only assume the devs are busy or otherwise indisposed. See the thread below for the patch. http://www.mail-archive.com/pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org/msg03141.html Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 15:02 Subject: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi all, Today I have upgraded Pgpool I to Pgpool II. And I had to roll back to Pgpool I due to memory hunger issue. My server is configured with PostgreSQL 8.2, running on FreeBSD 8.2 Intel Xeon box with 4 CPUs with Quad Core, total of 16 cores Memory with 24GB * While running on Pgpool I I do no have memory hunger issue. On postgresql.conf, I have max_connections=200 and shared_buffers=2GB. Most of the time, I have 8GB memory in used and 10GB Free and some in cached. Everything run just fine and perfectly good. * I tried upgraded to Pgpool II Same config on postgresql.conf, when I started PgPool II (3.0.4), my active memory started increasing and it didn't drop at all. I left the server running and after about 20 minutes, 20GB memory is in used, ended up it used swap memory because running out of memory. I run a reload/restart on pgpool, I gained back 14GB of free memory, and slowly it started to taken up those freed memory in active memory after about 15-20 minutes. I tried to bring down max_connections and shared_buffers value, and the memory doesn't stop taking up. It still slowly gaining all the memory it wants. Has anyone having that problem as well? I hope I can find some answer here :) Wanted to try out pgpool II performance but this problem is the stopper for now. Hope to get feedback from gurus in the house. Thanks! -- takizo ___ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general ___ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general memory_leak.patch Description: Binary data ___ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool
Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
One comment. According to Toshihiro, the memory leak only occurs in raw mode. -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp Hi Glyn, takizo, I created a patch to fix a massive memory leak of raw mode. The patch which was posted before by Yoshiyuki seems correct. However, I think it's better to call pool_query_context_destroy() than free_parser(). Would you try an attached patch? The patch is for V3.0_STABLE branch, but it's applicable to pgpool-II 3.0.x too. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:14:41 +0900 Toshihiro Kitagawa kitag...@sraoss.co.jp wrote: Hi Glyn, takizo, Sorry for delay. I fixed some memory leaks in pgpool-II 3.1 and V3_0_STABLE. But I guess memory leaks are remaining as you say. Surely, free_parser() which was commented out might be problem. However, I think simply uncommenting leads unexpected new problem. So we have to fix those carefully. I will investigate and fix memory problems which was posted to this ML from now on. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:22:50 +0800 takizo paul...@takizo.com wrote: Glyn, Surely, I will try 2.3.3 :) Thanks a lot -- Paul Ooi On Sep 8, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, We are currently using Pgpool-II 2.3.3 and it has been really stable for us. Unless you're after a specific feature in Pgpool-II 3.x you could perhaps try it? So far I've had no luck with the patch posted by Yoshiyuki, even with that patch there is still a massive memory leak in 3.0.4. It would appear that pool_proto_modules.c has lots commented out calls to free_parser(), many more than the single case that Yoshiyuki uncommented with his patch, so either there is a bit of a mess there that needs sorting out by someone who knows the overall logic, or the issue is elsewhere. Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 1:48 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Gyln, Thanks. I happened to read through the thread after posted the mail. It seems like I have to stick with Pgpool I until the developer is free. -- takizo On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, Yes this bug has been seen by numerous people on the list, Yoshiyuki Asaba has posted a patch, however there has been no response from the main Pgpool II developers. I did ask a few times, and also asked if we'd be better testing 3.1, but alas still no response. I can only assume the devs are busy or otherwise indisposed. See the thread below for the patch. http://www.mail-archive.com/pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org/msg03141.html Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 15:02 Subject: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi all, Today I have upgraded Pgpool I to Pgpool II. And I had to roll back to Pgpool I due to memory hunger issue. My server is configured with PostgreSQL 8.2, running on FreeBSD 8.2 Intel Xeon box with 4 CPUs with Quad Core, total of 16 cores Memory with 24GB * While running on Pgpool I I do no have memory hunger issue. On postgresql.conf, I have max_connections=200 and shared_buffers=2GB. Most of the time, I have 8GB memory in used and 10GB Free and some in cached. Everything run just fine and perfectly good. * I tried upgraded to Pgpool II Same config on postgresql.conf, when I started PgPool II (3.0.4), my active memory started increasing and it didn't drop at all. I left the server running and after about 20 minutes, 20GB memory is in used, ended up it used swap memory because running out of memory. I run a reload/restart on pgpool, I gained back 14GB of free memory, and slowly it started to taken up those freed memory in active memory after about 15-20 minutes. I tried to bring down max_connections and shared_buffers value, and the memory doesn't stop taking up. It still slowly gaining all the memory it wants. Has anyone having that problem as well? I hope I can find some answer here :) Wanted to try out pgpool II performance but this problem is the stopper for now. Hope to get feedback from gurus in the house. Thanks! -- takizo ___ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general ___ Pgpool-general mailing list
Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
Hi takizo, We are currently using Pgpool-II 2.3.3 and it has been really stable for us. Unless you're after a specific feature in Pgpool-II 3.x you could perhaps try it? So far I've had no luck with the patch posted by Yoshiyuki, even with that patch there is still a massive memory leak in 3.0.4. It would appear that pool_proto_modules.c has lots commented out calls to free_parser(), many more than the single case that Yoshiyuki uncommented with his patch, so either there is a bit of a mess there that needs sorting out by someone who knows the overall logic, or the issue is elsewhere. Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 1:48 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Gyln, Thanks. I happened to read through the thread after posted the mail. It seems like I have to stick with Pgpool I until the developer is free. -- takizo On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, Yes this bug has been seen by numerous people on the list, Yoshiyuki Asaba has posted a patch, however there has been no response from the main Pgpool II developers. I did ask a few times, and also asked if we'd be better testing 3.1, but alas still no response. I can only assume the devs are busy or otherwise indisposed. See the thread below for the patch. http://www.mail-archive.com/pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org/msg03141.html Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 15:02 Subject: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi all, Today I have upgraded Pgpool I to Pgpool II. And I had to roll back to Pgpool I due to memory hunger issue. My server is configured with PostgreSQL 8.2, running on FreeBSD 8.2 Intel Xeon box with 4 CPUs with Quad Core, total of 16 cores Memory with 24GB * While running on Pgpool I I do no have memory hunger issue. On postgresql.conf, I have max_connections=200 and shared_buffers=2GB. Most of the time, I have 8GB memory in used and 10GB Free and some in cached. Everything run just fine and perfectly good. * I tried upgraded to Pgpool II Same config on postgresql.conf, when I started PgPool II (3.0.4), my active memory started increasing and it didn't drop at all. I left the server running and after about 20 minutes, 20GB memory is in used, ended up it used swap memory because running out of memory. I run a reload/restart on pgpool, I gained back 14GB of free memory, and slowly it started to taken up those freed memory in active memory after about 15-20 minutes. I tried to bring down max_connections and shared_buffers value, and the memory doesn't stop taking up. It still slowly gaining all the memory it wants. Has anyone having that problem as well? I hope I can find some answer here :) Wanted to try out pgpool II performance but this problem is the stopper for now. Hope to get feedback from gurus in the house. Thanks! -- takizo ___ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general ___ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
Glyn, Surely, I will try 2.3.3 :) Thanks a lot -- Paul Ooi On Sep 8, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, We are currently using Pgpool-II 2.3.3 and it has been really stable for us. Unless you're after a specific feature in Pgpool-II 3.x you could perhaps try it? So far I've had no luck with the patch posted by Yoshiyuki, even with that patch there is still a massive memory leak in 3.0.4. It would appear that pool_proto_modules.c has lots commented out calls to free_parser(), many more than the single case that Yoshiyuki uncommented with his patch, so either there is a bit of a mess there that needs sorting out by someone who knows the overall logic, or the issue is elsewhere. Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 1:48 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Gyln, Thanks. I happened to read through the thread after posted the mail. It seems like I have to stick with Pgpool I until the developer is free. -- takizo On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, Yes this bug has been seen by numerous people on the list, Yoshiyuki Asaba has posted a patch, however there has been no response from the main Pgpool II developers. I did ask a few times, and also asked if we'd be better testing 3.1, but alas still no response. I can only assume the devs are busy or otherwise indisposed. See the thread below for the patch. http://www.mail-archive.com/pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org/msg03141.html Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 15:02 Subject: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi all, Today I have upgraded Pgpool I to Pgpool II. And I had to roll back to Pgpool I due to memory hunger issue. My server is configured with PostgreSQL 8.2, running on FreeBSD 8.2 Intel Xeon box with 4 CPUs with Quad Core, total of 16 cores Memory with 24GB * While running on Pgpool I I do no have memory hunger issue. On postgresql.conf, I have max_connections=200 and shared_buffers=2GB. Most of the time, I have 8GB memory in used and 10GB Free and some in cached. Everything run just fine and perfectly good. * I tried upgraded to Pgpool II Same config on postgresql.conf, when I started PgPool II (3.0.4), my active memory started increasing and it didn't drop at all. I left the server running and after about 20 minutes, 20GB memory is in used, ended up it used swap memory because running out of memory. I run a reload/restart on pgpool, I gained back 14GB of free memory, and slowly it started to taken up those freed memory in active memory after about 15-20 minutes. I tried to bring down max_connections and shared_buffers value, and the memory doesn't stop taking up. It still slowly gaining all the memory it wants. Has anyone having that problem as well? I hope I can find some answer here :) Wanted to try out pgpool II performance but this problem is the stopper for now. Hope to get feedback from gurus in the house. Thanks! -- takizo ___ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general ___ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
Hi Glyn, takizo, Sorry for delay. I fixed some memory leaks in pgpool-II 3.1 and V3_0_STABLE. But I guess memory leaks are remaining as you say. Surely, free_parser() which was commented out might be problem. However, I think simply uncommenting leads unexpected new problem. So we have to fix those carefully. I will investigate and fix memory problems which was posted to this ML from now on. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:22:50 +0800 takizo paul...@takizo.com wrote: Glyn, Surely, I will try 2.3.3 :) Thanks a lot -- Paul Ooi On Sep 8, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, We are currently using Pgpool-II 2.3.3 and it has been really stable for us. Unless you're after a specific feature in Pgpool-II 3.x you could perhaps try it? So far I've had no luck with the patch posted by Yoshiyuki, even with that patch there is still a massive memory leak in 3.0.4. It would appear that pool_proto_modules.c has lots commented out calls to free_parser(), many more than the single case that Yoshiyuki uncommented with his patch, so either there is a bit of a mess there that needs sorting out by someone who knows the overall logic, or the issue is elsewhere. Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 1:48 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Gyln, Thanks. I happened to read through the thread after posted the mail. It seems like I have to stick with Pgpool I until the developer is free. -- takizo On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, Yes this bug has been seen by numerous people on the list, Yoshiyuki Asaba has posted a patch, however there has been no response from the main Pgpool II developers. I did ask a few times, and also asked if we'd be better testing 3.1, but alas still no response. I can only assume the devs are busy or otherwise indisposed. See the thread below for the patch. http://www.mail-archive.com/pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org/msg03141.html Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 15:02 Subject: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi all, Today I have upgraded Pgpool I to Pgpool II. And I had to roll back to Pgpool I due to memory hunger issue. My server is configured with PostgreSQL 8.2, running on FreeBSD 8.2 Intel Xeon box with 4 CPUs with Quad Core, total of 16 cores Memory with 24GB * While running on Pgpool I I do no have memory hunger issue. On postgresql.conf, I have max_connections=200 and shared_buffers=2GB. Most of the time, I have 8GB memory in used and 10GB Free and some in cached. Everything run just fine and perfectly good. * I tried upgraded to Pgpool II Same config on postgresql.conf, when I started PgPool II (3.0.4), my active memory started increasing and it didn't drop at all. I left the server running and after about 20 minutes, 20GB memory is in used, ended up it used swap memory because running out of memory. I run a reload/restart on pgpool, I gained back 14GB of free memory, and slowly it started to taken up those freed memory in active memory after about 15-20 minutes. I tried to bring down max_connections and shared_buffers value, and the memory doesn't stop taking up. It still slowly gaining all the memory it wants. Has anyone having that problem as well? I hope I can find some answer here :) Wanted to try out pgpool II performance but this problem is the stopper for now. Hope to get feedback from gurus in the house. Thanks! -- takizo ___ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general ___ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
Toshihiro, Let me know once you have the fix, I can help up to test it. :) Thanks.. -- takizo On Sep 8, 2011, at 7:14 PM, Toshihiro Kitagawa wrote: Hi Glyn, takizo, Sorry for delay. I fixed some memory leaks in pgpool-II 3.1 and V3_0_STABLE. But I guess memory leaks are remaining as you say. Surely, free_parser() which was commented out might be problem. However, I think simply uncommenting leads unexpected new problem. So we have to fix those carefully. I will investigate and fix memory problems which was posted to this ML from now on. Regards, -- Toshihiro Kitagawa SRA OSS, Inc. Japan On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:22:50 +0800 takizo paul...@takizo.com wrote: Glyn, Surely, I will try 2.3.3 :) Thanks a lot -- Paul Ooi On Sep 8, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, We are currently using Pgpool-II 2.3.3 and it has been really stable for us. Unless you're after a specific feature in Pgpool-II 3.x you could perhaps try it? So far I've had no luck with the patch posted by Yoshiyuki, even with that patch there is still a massive memory leak in 3.0.4. It would appear that pool_proto_modules.c has lots commented out calls to free_parser(), many more than the single case that Yoshiyuki uncommented with his patch, so either there is a bit of a mess there that needs sorting out by someone who knows the overall logic, or the issue is elsewhere. Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 1:48 Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Gyln, Thanks. I happened to read through the thread after posted the mail. It seems like I have to stick with Pgpool I until the developer is free. -- takizo On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, Yes this bug has been seen by numerous people on the list, Yoshiyuki Asaba has posted a patch, however there has been no response from the main Pgpool II developers. I did ask a few times, and also asked if we'd be better testing 3.1, but alas still no response. I can only assume the devs are busy or otherwise indisposed. See the thread below for the patch. http://www.mail-archive.com/pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org/msg03141.html Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 15:02 Subject: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi all, Today I have upgraded Pgpool I to Pgpool II. And I had to roll back to Pgpool I due to memory hunger issue. My server is configured with PostgreSQL 8.2, running on FreeBSD 8.2 Intel Xeon box with 4 CPUs with Quad Core, total of 16 cores Memory with 24GB * While running on Pgpool I I do no have memory hunger issue. On postgresql.conf, I have max_connections=200 and shared_buffers=2GB. Most of the time, I have 8GB memory in used and 10GB Free and some in cached. Everything run just fine and perfectly good. * I tried upgraded to Pgpool II Same config on postgresql.conf, when I started PgPool II (3.0.4), my active memory started increasing and it didn't drop at all. I left the server running and after about 20 minutes, 20GB memory is in used, ended up it used swap memory because running out of memory. I run a reload/restart on pgpool, I gained back 14GB of free memory, and slowly it started to taken up those freed memory in active memory after about 15-20 minutes. I tried to bring down max_connections and shared_buffers value, and the memory doesn't stop taking up. It still slowly gaining all the memory it wants. Has anyone having that problem as well? I hope I can find some answer here :) Wanted to try out pgpool II performance but this problem is the stopper for now. Hope to get feedback from gurus in the house. Thanks! -- takizo ___ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general ___ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
Gyln, Thanks. I happened to read through the thread after posted the mail. It seems like I have to stick with Pgpool I until the developer is free. -- takizo On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Glyn Astill wrote: Hi takizo, Yes this bug has been seen by numerous people on the list, Yoshiyuki Asaba has posted a patch, however there has been no response from the main Pgpool II developers. I did ask a few times, and also asked if we'd be better testing 3.1, but alas still no response. I can only assume the devs are busy or otherwise indisposed. See the thread below for the patch. http://www.mail-archive.com/pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org/msg03141.html Glyn From: takizo paul...@takizo.com To: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 15:02 Subject: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II Hi all, Today I have upgraded Pgpool I to Pgpool II. And I had to roll back to Pgpool I due to memory hunger issue. My server is configured with PostgreSQL 8.2, running on FreeBSD 8.2 Intel Xeon box with 4 CPUs with Quad Core, total of 16 cores Memory with 24GB * While running on Pgpool I I do no have memory hunger issue. On postgresql.conf, I have max_connections=200 and shared_buffers=2GB. Most of the time, I have 8GB memory in used and 10GB Free and some in cached. Everything run just fine and perfectly good. * I tried upgraded to Pgpool II Same config on postgresql.conf, when I started PgPool II (3.0.4), my active memory started increasing and it didn't drop at all. I left the server running and after about 20 minutes, 20GB memory is in used, ended up it used swap memory because running out of memory. I run a reload/restart on pgpool, I gained back 14GB of free memory, and slowly it started to taken up those freed memory in active memory after about 15-20 minutes. I tried to bring down max_connections and shared_buffers value, and the memory doesn't stop taking up. It still slowly gaining all the memory it wants. Has anyone having that problem as well? I hope I can find some answer here :) Wanted to try out pgpool II performance but this problem is the stopper for now. Hope to get feedback from gurus in the house. Thanks! -- takizo ___ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general ___ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
