Re: [zeromq-dev] Memory leak on SUB set with CONFLATE?

2018-06-21 Thread James Harvey 
I am not a maintainer of the project so it's probably best if someone else (who 
properly understands) guides you further.  
There may be another way to trigger the cleanup but I don’t know what it is. 

All I am saying when you have ZMQ_CONFLATE set, the incoming message (and their 
associated memory) are only cleared after you have called zmq_recv() 100 times. 

Until you have the correct answer I would just have a 1 second timeout on your 
keyboard read, if the keyboard is not hit in one second do a zmq_read() and 
throw away the message. That will keep the memory in check.



-Original Message-
From: zeromq-dev  On Behalf Of Kevin Wang
Sent: 21 June 2018 15:07
To: ZeroMQ development list 
Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] Memory leak on SUB set with CONFLATE?

I see, thanks James. I had no idea config.hpp existed. 

Why would the queue grow if I have conflate set? Doesn’t that mean it should 
only queue one value? 

I’m doing this because there is some data that I would like client programs to 
always have access to, but only the most recent one. So my solution is to use 
CONFLATE and always send it out. 

If you have a better solution to that, I’d be glad to hear it. But until then, 
maybe I should change that value to 1. What other penalties/trade offs are 
there for changing it to 1? 


> On Jun 21, 2018, at 4:39 AM, James Harvey  wrote:
> 
> Hi Kevin,
> 
> I ran your test code and saw the same issue. I also created the tests with 
> straight libzmq (not czmq) and the issue still occurs.
> 
> The memory is not lost (valgrind confirms) but it does grow.
> 
> Eventually I noticed its proportional to the number of times you call 
> zmq_recv(). 
> 
> Adding code to force heap cleanup and print the stats shows that every 100 
> times zmq_recv is called, the queue is purged.
> 
> malloc_trim(0);
> malloc_stats();
> 
> Finally I found inbound_poll_rate which is used by socket_base to determine 
> how often to check for signals and commands.
> https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/blob/b77d7610cd91dbe25096b804c77b2706
> 5b7dd1fd/src/config.hpp#L53
> 
> Reducing this 1 (as a test) fixed the issue and memory never rose above 4Mb.
> 
> Is this a real issue? I am not sure.
> I guess for some edge cases where you receive a truck load of data and don’t 
> process it. But on the other hand why would you do that.
> 
> Possible fixes I can think of would be a socket_option to modify 
> inbound_poll_rate OR Force process_commands() on a timer if no 
> activity is occurring.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> James   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: zeromq-dev  On Behalf Of 
> Kevin Wang
> Sent: 20 June 2018 22:12
> To: zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] Memory leak on SUB set with CONFLATE?
> 
> The memory of the SUB process goes up.
> 
> If I remove the getline() call and the SUB process keeps up, the RAM stays 
> still for both. Those programs compile with gcc pretty easily, if you feel 
> like trying it out. Maybe my Ubuntu is just messed up.
> 
> I assume since its CONFLATE is on, maybe the PUB doesn't queue it, but SUB 
> still does? In that case, I also would assume that replacing the old message 
> with the new one would free the memory held by the old message.
> 
> 
>> On 06/20/2018 01:38 PM, James Harvey wrote:
>> When you say “the system memory skyrockets” are you talking about the memory 
>> used by the SUB process or PUB process?
>> 
>> I would expect the memory of the PUB process to increase as it will be 
>> queueing messages.
>> 
>>> On 20 Jun 2018, at 21:02, Kevin Wang  wrote:
>>> 
>>> the system memory skyrockets,
>> ___
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> 
> ___
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> ___
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

Re: [zeromq-dev] Memory leak on SUB set with CONFLATE?

2018-06-21 Thread Kevin Wang 
I see, thanks James. I had no idea config.hpp existed. 

Why would the queue grow if I have conflate set? Doesn’t that mean it should 
only queue one value? 

I’m doing this because there is some data that I would like client programs to 
always have access to, but only the most recent one. So my solution is to use 
CONFLATE and always send it out. 

If you have a better solution to that, I’d be glad to hear it. But until then, 
maybe I should change that value to 1. What other penalties/trade offs are 
there for changing it to 1? 


> On Jun 21, 2018, at 4:39 AM, James Harvey  wrote:
> 
> Hi Kevin,
> 
> I ran your test code and saw the same issue. I also created the tests with 
> straight libzmq (not czmq) and the issue still occurs.
> 
> The memory is not lost (valgrind confirms) but it does grow.
> 
> Eventually I noticed its proportional to the number of times you call 
> zmq_recv(). 
> 
> Adding code to force heap cleanup and print the stats shows that every 100 
> times zmq_recv is called, the queue is purged.
> 
> malloc_trim(0);
> malloc_stats();
> 
> Finally I found inbound_poll_rate which is used by socket_base to determine 
> how often to check for signals and commands.
> https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/blob/b77d7610cd91dbe25096b804c77b27065b7dd1fd/src/config.hpp#L53
> 
> Reducing this 1 (as a test) fixed the issue and memory never rose above 4Mb.
> 
> Is this a real issue? I am not sure.
> I guess for some edge cases where you receive a truck load of data and don’t 
> process it. But on the other hand why would you do that.
> 
> Possible fixes I can think of would be a socket_option to modify 
> inbound_poll_rate
> OR
> Force process_commands() on a timer if no activity is occurring.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> James   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: zeromq-dev  On Behalf Of Kevin Wang
> Sent: 20 June 2018 22:12
> To: zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] Memory leak on SUB set with CONFLATE?
> 
> The memory of the SUB process goes up.
> 
> If I remove the getline() call and the SUB process keeps up, the RAM stays 
> still for both. Those programs compile with gcc pretty easily, if you feel 
> like trying it out. Maybe my Ubuntu is just messed up.
> 
> I assume since its CONFLATE is on, maybe the PUB doesn't queue it, but SUB 
> still does? In that case, I also would assume that replacing the old message 
> with the new one would free the memory held by the old message.
> 
> 
>> On 06/20/2018 01:38 PM, James Harvey wrote:
>> When you say “the system memory skyrockets” are you talking about the memory 
>> used by the SUB process or PUB process?
>> 
>> I would expect the memory of the PUB process to increase as it will be 
>> queueing messages.
>> 
>>> On 20 Jun 2018, at 21:02, Kevin Wang  wrote:
>>> 
>>> the system memory skyrockets,
>> ___
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> 
> ___
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> ___
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

Re: [zeromq-dev] commercial support for ZeroMQ

2018-06-21 Thread Bill Torpey 
Yup — thanks!  I’ve already heard from Karol and Michal and we’re in touch off 
the list.

> On Jun 21, 2018, at 7:28 AM, Doron Somech  wrote:
> 
> Look at Karol message at the list from yesterday.
> 
> karol.hrdina  AT gmail.com 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Bill Torpey  > wrote:
> Some of you may recognize my email from some emails to the list, GitHub 
> issues and pull requests.  I'm leading a project to implement a middleware 
> solution based on ZeroMQ at my employer: a large-ish  (~1,000 employees) 
> global provider of software and services to the financial community.  
> 
> I'm interested in knowing about any possible sources of commercial support 
> for ZeroMQ — initially for a relatively brief consulting assignment to help 
> validate/critique our design and implementation, and also to help us 
> understand ZeroMQ internals better.
> 
> The project is based out of NYC, but remote arrangements are possible too.
> 
> If you might be interested, or know someone who might, please contact me 
> directly: wallstp...@gmail.com 
> 
> Thanks!
> ___
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org 
> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev 
> 
> 
> ___
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

Re: [zeromq-dev] Memory leak on SUB set with CONFLATE?

2018-06-21 Thread James Harvey 
Hi Kevin,

I ran your test code and saw the same issue. I also created the tests with 
straight libzmq (not czmq) and the issue still occurs.

The memory is not lost (valgrind confirms) but it does grow.

Eventually I noticed its proportional to the number of times you call 
zmq_recv(). 

Adding code to force heap cleanup and print the stats shows that every 100 
times zmq_recv is called, the queue is purged.

malloc_trim(0);
malloc_stats();

Finally I found inbound_poll_rate which is used by socket_base to determine how 
often to check for signals and commands.
https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/blob/b77d7610cd91dbe25096b804c77b27065b7dd1fd/src/config.hpp#L53

Reducing this 1 (as a test) fixed the issue and memory never rose above 4Mb.

Is this a real issue? I am not sure.
I guess for some edge cases where you receive a truck load of data and don’t 
process it. But on the other hand why would you do that.

Possible fixes I can think of would be a socket_option to modify 
inbound_poll_rate
OR
Force process_commands() on a timer if no activity is occurring.

Thanks

James   





-Original Message-
From: zeromq-dev  On Behalf Of Kevin Wang
Sent: 20 June 2018 22:12
To: zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] Memory leak on SUB set with CONFLATE?

The memory of the SUB process goes up.

If I remove the getline() call and the SUB process keeps up, the RAM stays 
still for both. Those programs compile with gcc pretty easily, if you feel like 
trying it out. Maybe my Ubuntu is just messed up.

I assume since its CONFLATE is on, maybe the PUB doesn't queue it, but SUB 
still does? In that case, I also would assume that replacing the old message 
with the new one would free the memory held by the old message.


On 06/20/2018 01:38 PM, James Harvey wrote:
> When you say “the system memory skyrockets” are you talking about the memory 
> used by the SUB process or PUB process?
>
> I would expect the memory of the PUB process to increase as it will be 
> queueing messages.
>
>> On 20 Jun 2018, at 21:02, Kevin Wang  wrote:
>>
>> the system memory skyrockets,
> ___
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

Re: [zeromq-dev] commercial support for ZeroMQ

2018-06-21 Thread Doron Somech 
Look at Karol message at the list from yesterday.

karol.hrdina  AT gmail.com

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Bill Torpey  wrote:

> Some of you may recognize my email from some emails to the list, GitHub
> issues and pull requests.  I'm leading a project to implement a middleware
> solution based on ZeroMQ at my employer: a large-ish  (~1,000 employees)
> global provider of software and services to the financial community.
>
> I'm interested in knowing about any possible sources of commercial support
> for ZeroMQ — initially for a relatively brief consulting assignment to help
> validate/critique our design and implementation, and also to help us
> understand ZeroMQ internals better.
>
> The project is based out of NYC, but remote arrangements are possible too.
>
> If you might be interested, or know someone who might, please contact me
> directly: wallstp...@gmail.com
>
> Thanks!
> ___
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev