Re: FreeBSD 8.2 - active plus inactive memory leak!?
On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 10:23 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:36:21AM +, Luke Marsden wrote: I'm trying to confirm that, on a system with no pages swapped out, that the following is a true statement: a page is accounted for in active + inactive if and only if it corresponds to one or more of the pages accounted for in the resident memory lists of all the processes on the system (as per the output of 'top' and 'ps') No. The pages belonging to vnode vm object can be active or inactive or cached but not mapped into any process address space. Thank you, Konstantin. Does the number of vnodes we've got open on this machine (272011) fully explain away the memory gap? Memory gap: 11264M active + 2598M inactive - 9297M sum-of-resident = 4565M Active vnodes: vfs.numvnodes: 272011 That gives a lower bound at 17.18Kb per vode (or higher if we take into account shared libs, etc); that seems a bit high for a vnode vm object doesn't it? If that doesn't fully explain it, what else might be chewing through active memory? Also, when are vnodes freed? This system does have some tuning... kern.maxfiles: 100 vm.pmap.pv_entry_max: 73296250 Could that be contributing to so much active + inactive memory (5GB+ more than expected), or do PV entries live in wired e.g. kernel memory? On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 17:48 -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: In my experience, the bulk of the memory in the inactive category is cached disk blocks, at least for ufs (I think zfs does things differently). On this desktop machine I have 12G physical and typically have roughly 11G inactive, and I can unmount one particular filesystem where most of my work is done and instantly I have almost no inactive and roughly 11G free. Okay, so this could be UFS disk cache, except the system is ZFS-on-root with no UFS filesystems active or mounted. Can I confirm that no double-caching of ZFS data is happening in active + inactive (+ cache) memory? Thanks, Luke -- CTO, Hybrid Logic +447791750420 | +1-415-449-1165 | www.hybrid-cluster.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD 8.2 - active plus inactive memory leak!?
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:23:38 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:36:21AM +, Luke Marsden wrote: ... I'm trying to confirm that, on a system with no pages swapped out, that the following is a true statement: a page is accounted for in active + inactive if and only if it corresponds to one or more of the pages accounted for in the resident memory lists of all the processes on the system (as per the output of 'top' and 'ps') No. The pages belonging to vnode vm object can be active or inactive or cached but not mapped into any process address space. I wonder if some ideas by Denys Vlasenko contained in this thread http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/157706 would be useful ? ... Today, I'm looking at my process list, sorted by amount of dirtied pages (which very closely matches amount of malloced and used space - that is, malloced, but not-written to memory areas are not included). This is the most expensive type of pages, they can't be discarded. If we would be in memory squeeze, kernel will have to swap them out, if swap exists, otherwise kernel can't do anything at all. ... Note that any shared pages (such as glibc) are not freed this way; also, non-mapped pages (such as large, but unused malloced space, or large, but unused file mappings) also do not contribute to MemFree increase. jb ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD 8.2 - active plus inactive memory leak!?
On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 13:33 +0100, J B wrote: On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:23:38 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:36:21AM +, Luke Marsden wrote: ... I'm trying to confirm that, on a system with no pages swapped out, that the following is a true statement: a page is accounted for in active + inactive if and only if it corresponds to one or more of the pages accounted for in the resident memory lists of all the processes on the system (as per the output of 'top' and 'ps') No. The pages belonging to vnode vm object can be active or inactive or cached but not mapped into any process address space. I wonder if some ideas by Denys Vlasenko contained in this thread http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/157706 would be useful ? https://github.com/pixelb/scripts/blob/master/scripts/ps_mem.py This looks like a really useful script, and looks like it works under FreeBSD with linprocfs. Good find! Cheers, Luke ... Today, I'm looking at my process list, sorted by amount of dirtied pages (which very closely matches amount of malloced and used space - that is, malloced, but not-written to memory areas are not included). This is the most expensive type of pages, they can't be discarded. If we would be in memory squeeze, kernel will have to swap them out, if swap exists, otherwise kernel can't do anything at all. ... Note that any shared pages (such as glibc) are not freed this way; also, non-mapped pages (such as large, but unused malloced space, or large, but unused file mappings) also do not contribute to MemFree increase. jb -- CTO, Hybrid Logic +447791750420 | +1-415-449-1165 | www.hybrid-cluster.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD 8.2 - active plus inactive memory leak!?
On 3/6/2012 2:13 PM, Luke Marsden wrote: [ ... ] My current (probably quite simplistic) understanding of the FreeBSD virtual memory system is that, for each process as reported by top: * Size corresponds to the total size of all the text pages for the process (those belonging to code in the binary itself and linked libraries) plus data pages (including stack and malloc()'d but not-yet-written-to memory segments). Size is the amount of the processes' VM address space which has been assigned; the various things you mention indeed are the common things which consume address space, but there are others like shared memory (ie, SysV shmem stuff), memory-mapped hardware like a video card VRAM buffer, thread-local storage, etc. * Resident corresponds to a subset of the pages above: those pages which actually occupy physical/core memory. Notably pages may appear in size but not appear in resident for read-only text pages from libraries which have not been used yet or which have been malloc()'d but not yet written-to. Yes. My understanding for the values for the system as a whole (at the top in 'top') is as follows: * Active / inactive memory is the same thing: resident memory from processes in use. Being in the inactive as opposed to active list simply indicates that the pages in question are less recently used and therefore more likely to get swapped out if the machine comes under memory pressure. Well, they aren't exactly the same thing. The kernel implements a VM working set algorithm which periodically looks at all of the pages that are in memory and notes whether a process has accessed that page recently. If it has, the page is active; if the page has not been used for some time, it becomes inactive. If the system has plenty of memory, it will not page or swap anything out. If it is under mild memory pressure, it will only consider pages which are inactive or cache as candidates for which it might page them out. Only under more severe memory pressure will it start looking to swap out entire processes rather than just page individual pages out. [ Although, the FreeBSD implementation supposedly will try to balance the size of the active, inactive, and cache lists (or queues), so it is looking at the active list also-- but you don't want to page out an active page unless you really have to, and if you have to do that, maybe you might as well free up the whole process and let something have enough room to run. ] * Wired is mostly kernel memory. It's normally all kernel memory; only a rare handful of userland programs such as crypto code like gnupg ever ask for wired memory, AFAIK. * Cache is freed memory which the kernel has decided to keep in case it correspond to a useful page in future; it can be cheaply evicted into the free list. Sort of, although this description fits the inactive memory category also. The major distinction is that the system is actively trying to flush any dirty pages in the cache category, so that they are available for reuse by something else immediately. * Free memory is actually not being used for anything. Yes, although the system likes to have at least a few pre-zeroed pages handy in case an interrupt handler needs them. It seems that pages which occur in the active + inactive lists must occur in the resident memory of one or more processes (or more since processes can share pages in e.g. read-only shared libs or COW forked address space). Everything in the active and inactive (and cache) lists are resident in physical memory. Conversely, if a page *does not* occur in the resident memory of any process, it must not occupy any space in the active + inactive lists. Hmm...if a process gets swapped out entirely, the pages for it will be moved to the cache list, flushed, and then reused as soon as the disk I/O completes. But there is a window where the process can be marked as swapped out (and considered no longer resident), but still has some of it's pages in physical memory. Therefore the active + inactive memory should always be less than or equal to the sum of the resident memory of all the processes on the system, right? No. If you've got a lot of process pages shared (ie, a webserver with lots of httpd children, or a database pulling in a large common shmem area), then your process resident sizes can be very large compared to the system-wide active+inactive count. This missing memory is scary, because it seems to be increasing over time, and eventually when the system runs out of free memory, I'm certain it will crash in the same way described in my previous thread [1]. I don't have enough data to fully evaluate the interactions with ZFS; you can easily get system panics by running out of KVA on a 32-bit system, but that shouldn't apply
Re: FreeBSD 8.2 - active plus inactive memory leak!?
Thanks for your email, Chuck. Conversely, if a page *does not* occur in the resident memory of any process, it must not occupy any space in the active + inactive lists. Hmm...if a process gets swapped out entirely, the pages for it will be moved to the cache list, flushed, and then reused as soon as the disk I/O completes. But there is a window where the process can be marked as swapped out (and considered no longer resident), but still has some of it's pages in physical memory. There's no swapping happening on these machines (intentionally so, because as soon as we hit swap everything goes tits up), so this window doesn't concern me. I'm trying to confirm that, on a system with no pages swapped out, that the following is a true statement: a page is accounted for in active + inactive if and only if it corresponds to one or more of the pages accounted for in the resident memory lists of all the processes on the system (as per the output of 'top' and 'ps') Therefore the active + inactive memory should always be less than or equal to the sum of the resident memory of all the processes on the system, right? No. If you've got a lot of process pages shared (ie, a webserver with lots of httpd children, or a database pulling in a large common shmem area), then your process resident sizes can be very large compared to the system-wide active+inactive count. But that's what I'm saying... sum(process resident sizes) = active + inactive Or as I said it above, equivalently: active + inactive = sum(process resident sizes) The data I've got from this system, and what's killing us, shows the opposite: active + inactive sum(process resident sizes) - by over 5GB now and growing, which is what keeps causing these machines to crash. In particular: Mem: 13G Active, 1129M Inact, 7543M Wired, 120M Cache, 1553M Free But the total sum of resident memories is 9457M (according to summing the output from ps or top). 13G + 1129M = 14441M (active + inact) 9457M (sum of res) That's 4984M out, and that's almost enough to push us over the edge. If my understanding of VM is correct, I don't see how this can happen. But it's happening, and it's causing real trouble here because our free memory keeps hitting zero and then we swap-spiral. What can I do to investigate this discrepancy? Are there some tools that I can use to debug the memory allocated in active to find out where it's going, if not to resident process memory? Thanks, Luke -- CTO, Hybrid Logic +447791750420 | +1-415-449-1165 | www.hybrid-cluster.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD 8.2 - active plus inactive memory leak!?
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:30:07 -0500 Chuck Swiger wrote: On 3/6/2012 2:13 PM, Luke Marsden wrote: * Resident corresponds to a subset of the pages above: those pages which actually occupy physical/core memory. Notably pages may appear in size but not appear in resident for read-only text pages from libraries which have not been used yet or which have been malloc()'d but not yet written-to. Yes. My understanding for the values for the system as a whole (at the top in 'top') is as follows: * Active / inactive memory is the same thing: resident memory from processes in use. Being in the inactive as opposed to active list simply indicates that the pages in question are less recently used and therefore more likely to get swapped out if the machine comes under memory pressure. Well, they aren't exactly the same thing. The kernel implements a VM working set algorithm which periodically looks at all of the pages that are in memory and notes whether a process has accessed that page recently. If it has, the page is active; if the page has not been used for some time, it becomes inactive. I think the previous poster has it about right, it's mostly about lifecycle. The inactive queue contains a mixture of resident and non-resident memory. It's commonly dominated by disk cache pages, and consequently is easily blown away by recursive greps etc. * Cache is freed memory which the kernel has decided to keep in case it correspond to a useful page in future; it can be cheaply evicted into the free list. Sort of, although this description fits the inactive memory category also. The major distinction is that the system is actively trying to flush any dirty pages in the cache category, so that they are available for reuse by something else immediately. Only clean pages are added to cache. A dirty page will go twice around the inactive queue as dirty, get flushed and then do a third pass as a clean page. The point of cache is that it's a small stock of memory that's available for immediate reuse, the pages have nothing else in common. On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:36:21 + Luke Marsden wrote: But that's what I'm saying... sum(process resident sizes) = active + inactive Inactive memory contains disc cache. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Memory leak and swapfile
On 26/11/2010 18:24, Jack Raats wrote: It looks like that there may be a memory leak of my swap space with one of the processes that is running. Big question: How can I determine which process is responsible. Any suggestions? Look for a process with a really big SIZE in top(1) ? Look for pages being mapped to swap via 'systat -vmstat 1' Any activity of the Swap Pager is a bad sign. It's not so much 'swap space' as some process or processes using up memory in general: when more memory has been allocated by processes than will fit into RAM simultaneously, then you'll start getting pages mapped to swap. This is not intrinsically a bad thing: a one-time swap out of a load of otherwise idle memory pages will clear space for more actively used stuff. It's generally very bad for performance if processes are getting continually swapped in and out -- disk IO is pretty slow compared to RAM. Use eg. 'systat -vmstat 1' to monitor swap activity. It's not necessarily *one* process getting too big. Processes that fork multiple copies of themselves (like apache) can fill up RAM by spawning too many copies of themselves. In fact, it's a well known apache tuning trick to limit the maximum number of apache child processes to what will fit into RAM at one time -- swapping makes a far bigger impact on performance than queueing up web requests until there's a free worker process to service them. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Memory leak and swapfile
It looks like that there may be a memory leak of my swap space with one of the processes that is running. Big question: How can I determine which process is responsible. Any suggestions? Thanks Jack ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
memory leak?
After a reboot of my FreeBSD 8.0-p4 system a vmstat shows: Mon Aug 23 08:40:00 CEST 2010 procs memory pagedisks faults cpu r b w avmfre flt re pi pofr sr da0 pa0 in sy cs us sy id 1 1 0 1515M 7118M 816 5 5 0 726 0 0 0 138 2376 1740 1 2 97 My system had been allocated 8 Gb memory in a Vmware ESXi4 virtual machine. avm = active virtual pages, fre = size of free list 2525M + 7118M is 9600M is this normal? (more than 8 Gb..) six days ago is was: Tue Aug 17 14:15:00 CEST 2010 procs memory pagedisks faults cpu r b w avmfre flt re pi pofr sr da0 pa0 in sy cs us sy id 3 1 0 2446M 1552M 628 0 0 0 621 6 0 0 30 939 572 1 1 98 but before the reboot it was Mon Aug 23 06:45:00 CEST 2010 procs memory pagedisks faults cpu r b w avmfre flt re pi pofr sr da0 pa0 in sy cs us sy id 5 22 0 2260M 816M 489 0 0 0 478 2 0 0 27 957 580 1 198 avm + free adds up to only 3 Gb. Where is the rest of the memory ?? Is there a memory leak, how to find what causes the memory leak? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: memory leak?
On 08/23/10 11:50, n dhert wrote: After a reboot of my FreeBSD 8.0-p4 system a vmstat shows: Mon Aug 23 08:40:00 CEST 2010 procs memory pagedisks faults cpu r b w avmfre flt re pi pofr sr da0 pa0 in sy cs us sy id 1 1 0 1515M 7118M 816 5 5 0 726 0 0 0 138 2376 1740 1 2 97 My system had been allocated 8 Gb memory in a Vmware ESXi4 virtual machine. avm = active virtual pages, fre = size of free list 2525M + 7118M is 9600M is this normal? (more than 8 Gb..) See here, on a physical machine with 4 GB RAM: procs memory pagedisks faults cpu r b w avmfre flt re pi pofr sr ad0 cd0 in sy cs us sy id 1 0 0 5571M 1254M30 0 0 029 0 0 08 519 522 0 0 100 We have 5571+1254=6825 MB. The catch is in the description - active *virtual* pages belonging to processes - they do not have to correspond to physical RAM. six days ago is was: 3 1 0 2446M 1552M 628 0 0 0 621 6 0 0 30 939 572 1 5 22 0 2260M 816M 489 0 0 0 478 2 0 0 27 957 580 avm + free adds up to only 3 Gb. Where is the rest of the memory ?? There are a lot other uses for memory. Try running top a couple of time when you seem to detect the leak and add together the various categories of memory. Is there a memory leak, how to find what causes the memory leak? If indeed there is, which is not probable, you first need to discover is it in a userland program or in kernel. If in kernel, use vmstat -m to track usage over time and see if some category increases when it shouldn't. Also, since you are running vmware, maybe you should try running emulators/open-vm-tools and its vmmemctl driver - it could help if your host is running out of memory. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Is this a kernel memory leak or a process memory leak?
List, Maybe I'm just not that bright, but I have a question regarding the following: man 3 getenv snip Successive calls to setenv() or putenv() assigning a differently sized value to the same name will result in a memory leak. The FreeBSD seman- tics for these functions (namely, that the contents of value are copied and that old values remain accessible indefinitely) make this bug unavoidable. Future versions may eliminate one or both of these semantic guarantees in order to fix the bug. /snip This is a memory leak within the process which calls sentenv() or putenv(), not a memory leak in the kernel, right? Like, if I called putenv() a in a loop and then exited the process, the kernel will reclaim that cluster-fuck of lost allocated memory, right? (If it's a kernel leak that would be super retarded as any process could affectively starve the kernel of memory. ) So it's a userland leak right? Anybody? -Modulok- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is this a kernel memory leak or a process memory leak?
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:43:57 -0600, Modulok modu...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe I'm just not that bright, but I have a question regarding the following: man 3 getenv snip Successive calls to setenv() or putenv() assigning a differently sized value to the same name will result in a memory leak. The FreeBSD seman- tics for these functions (namely, that the contents of value are copied and that old values remain accessible indefinitely) make this bug unavoidable. Future versions may eliminate one or both of these semantic guarantees in order to fix the bug. /snip This is a memory leak within the process which calls sentenv() or putenv(), not a memory leak in the kernel, right? Yes, it's a userland leak. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Memory leak with conky, anyone else?
I get the feeling Conky 1.4.8 (the sysutil), or one of the libs it links against, has a memory leak. I do not have any hard evidence yet (like a patch to fix it), but the memory consumption slowly climbs to what appears to be excessive. I did read the manual page about: Conky is generally very good on resources. However, certain objects in Conky are harder on resources then othersIf you do use them, please do not complain about memory or CPU usage, unless you think something's seriously wrong... I am using those features, but I still think something is seriously wrong. The following is after running for 6.5 days: top; PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATETIME WCPU COMMAND 791 Modulok 1 960 280M 278M select 42:37 0.00% conky ps -u; USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND Modulok 791 0.0 13.7 286708 284912 v0 SFri09AM 42:35.18 conky Anyone else have similar issues? -Modulok- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory leak with conky, anyone else?
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:56:25PM -0700, Modulok wrote: I get the feeling Conky 1.4.8 (the sysutil), or one of the libs it links against, has a memory leak. I do not have any hard evidence yet (like a patch to fix it), but the memory consumption slowly climbs to what appears to be excessive. I did read the manual page about: Conky is generally very good on resources. However, certain objects in Conky are harder on resources then othersIf you do use them, please do not complain about memory or CPU usage, unless you think something's seriously wrong... I am using those features, but I still think something is seriously How does your .conkyrc look? wrong. The following is after running for 6.5 days: top; PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATETIME WCPU COMMAND 791 Modulok 1 960 280M 278M select 42:37 0.00% conky 41631 rsmith 1 440 27532K 5460K select 33:32 0.00% conky ps -u; USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND Modulok 791 0.0 13.7 286708 284912 v0 SFri09AM 42:35.18 conky rsmith 41631 0.0 0.5 27532 5460 v0 S 3Dec07 33:31.68 conky -d Fine here (FreeBSD 7.0-BETA3 amd64) Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgpS8yGDS6VKd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Memory leak and deep swap upon the restart?
In the last episode (Mar 15), Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri said: Hello, I have a webmail server, has apache 2.2.4, mysql 5.0.33, php 5.2.1, clamav, mailscanner ..etc. The weird issue it goes into deep swap when it starts or I restart it. *sigh* This happened since like 6 months I don't know why? it was okay before that. here is the top info last pid: 790; load averages: 0.00, 0.06, 0.05 up 0+00:06:50 03:51:28 69 processes: 1 running, 68 sleeping CPU states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.4% system, 0.0% interrupt, 99.6% idle Mem: 323M Active, 91M Inact, 56M Wired, 27M Cache, 52M Buf, 988K Free Swap: 2048M Total, 104M Used, 1944M Free, 5% Inuse Right now you're only showing 100M of swap being used; that looks fine, as long as it's not being accessed constantly (watch for ##K in, ##K out to appear on the Swap: line, or watch the pi and po columns of vmstat 5). If you see constant swap activity, that means you'll need to reduce the number of worker processes for your multiprocess daemons (from your ps output, that means apache, amavisd amd MailScanner), move some processes to another machine, or add RAM. Here is the ps -aux output mail# ps -aux USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND vscan 482 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) vscan 483 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) You have a bunch of amavisd processes that are completely swapped out (0 RSS) and have never consumed any CPU (TIME column). This probably means that you could safely reduce the number of worker processes since they're never used. Also, the MailScanner process is pretty big; maybe there are some settings you can change to make it use less. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Memory leak and deep swap upon the restart?
Hello, I have a webmail server, has apache 2.2.4, mysql 5.0.33, php 5.2.1, clamav, mailscanner ..etc. The weird issue it goes into deep swap when it starts or I restart it. *sigh* This happened since like 6 months I don't know why? it was okay before that. here is the top info last pid: 790; load averages: 0.00, 0.06, 0.05 up 0+00:06:50 03:51:28 69 processes: 1 running, 68 sleeping CPU states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.4% system, 0.0% interrupt, 99.6% idle Mem: 323M Active, 91M Inact, 56M Wired, 27M Cache, 52M Buf, 988K Free Swap: 2048M Total, 104M Used, 1944M Free, 5% Inuse Here is the ps -aux output mail# ps -aux USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND root10 98.7 0.0 0 8 ?? RL3:45AM 5:55.48 [idle] root 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 ?? WLs 3:45AM 0:00.00 [swapper] root 1 0.0 0.0 820 140 ?? ILs 3:45AM 0:00.01 /sbin/init -- root 2 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:00.02 [g_event] root 3 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:00.22 [g_up] root 4 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:00.17 [g_down] root 5 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:00.00 [thread taskq] root 6 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:00.00 [kqueue taskq] root 7 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:00.00 [acpi_task_0] root 8 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:00.00 [acpi_task_1] root 9 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:00.00 [acpi_task_2] root11 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? WL3:45AM 0:00.87 [swi4: clock] root12 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? WL3:45AM 0:00.00 [swi3: vm] root13 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? WL3:45AM 0:00.13 [swi1: net] root14 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:00.06 [yarrow] root15 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? WL3:45AM 0:00.00 [swi6: Giant taskq] root16 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? WL3:45AM 0:00.00 [swi6: task queue] root17 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? WL3:45AM 0:00.00 [swi5: +] root18 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? WL3:45AM 0:00.00 [irq20: acpi0] root19 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? WL3:45AM 0:00.19 [irq22: fxp0] root20 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? WL3:45AM 0:00.11 [irq14: ata0] root21 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? WL3:45AM 0:00.00 [irq15: ata1] root22 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? WL3:45AM 0:00.00 [irq1: atkbd0] root23 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:01.00 [pagedaemon] root24 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:00.78 [vmdaemon] root25 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:00.31 [pagezero] root26 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:00.00 [bufdaemon] root27 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:00.00 [vnlru] root28 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:00.03 [syncer] root29 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:00.01 [softdepflush] root30 0.0 0.0 0 8 ?? DL3:45AM 0:00.02 [schedcpu] root92 0.0 0.0 1364 0 ?? IWs - 0:00.00 adjkerntz -i root 344 0.0 0.1 1496 440 ?? Ss3:45AM 0:00.02 /usr/sbin/syslogd -ss -a /var/amavis/var/log vscan 449 0.0 0.7 45840 3520 ?? Ss3:45AM 0:00.48 amavisd (master) (perl5.8.8) postgrey 468 0.0 0.0 8800 0 ?? IWs - 0:00.00 /usr/local/sbin/postgrey --pidfile=/var/run/postgrey.pid --inet=10 root 474 0.0 10.9 61788 56864 ?? Ss3:45AM 0:02.95 /usr/local/bin/spamd -c -Q -d -r /var/run/spamd/spamd.pid (perl5.8 vscan 482 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) vscan 483 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) vscan 484 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) vscan 485 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) vscan 486 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) vscan 487 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) vscan 488 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) vscan 489 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) root 633 0.0 0.1 2444 412 ?? Ss3:45AM 0:00.01 /usr/local/libexec/postfix/master postfix644 0.0 0.1 2476 416 ?? S 3:45AM 0:00.01 pickup -l -t fifo -u postfix645 0.0 0.1 2524 480 ?? I 3:45AM 0:00.01 qmgr -l -t fifo -u root 646 0.0 0.7 61788 3428 ?? I 3:45AM 0:00.01 spamd child (perl5.8.8) root 647 0.0 0.3 61788 1424 ?? I 3:45AM 0:00.00 spamd child (perl5.8.8) postfix649 0.0 0.2 18916 1180 ?? Is
Re: Memory leak and deep swap upon the restart?
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 06:55:24AM +0300, Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri wrote: Hello, I have a webmail server, has apache 2.2.4, mysql 5.0.33, php 5.2.1, clamav, mailscanner ..etc. The weird issue it goes into deep swap when it starts or I restart it. *sigh* This happened since like 6 months I don't know why? it was okay before that. Your running processes are trying to use more memory than is present in your system, so swapping is the only possibility. Look at the VSZ column (virtual size) to see how overloaded your system is. USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND vscan 449 0.0 0.7 45840 3520 ?? Ss3:45AM 0:00.48 amavisd (master) (perl5.8.8) root 474 0.0 10.9 61788 56864 ?? Ss3:45AM 0:02.95 /usr/local/bin/spamd -c -Q -d -r /var/run/spamd/spamd.pid (perl5.8 vscan 482 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) vscan 483 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) vscan 484 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) vscan 485 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) vscan 486 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) vscan 487 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) vscan 488 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) vscan 489 0.0 0.0 46472 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 amavisd (virgin child) (perl5.8.8) root 646 0.0 0.7 61788 3428 ?? I 3:45AM 0:00.01 spamd child (perl5.8.8) root 647 0.0 0.3 61788 1424 ?? I 3:45AM 0:00.00 spamd child (perl5.8.8) postfix649 0.0 0.2 18916 1180 ?? Is3:45AM 0:00.01 MailScanner: master waiting for children, sleeping (perl5.8.8) postfix650 0.0 0.5 79972 2464 ?? S 3:45AM 0:03.10 MailScanner: waiting for messages (perl5.8.8) root 667 0.0 1.3 49788 6732 ?? Ss3:45AM 0:00.18 /usr/local/sbin/httpd www742 0.0 0.0 49864 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 /usr/local/sbin/httpd www763 0.0 1.3 50704 6980 ?? I 3:45AM 0:00.02 /usr/local/sbin/httpd www765 0.0 2.0 52184 10140 ?? I 3:45AM 0:00.31 /usr/local/sbin/httpd www766 0.0 0.7 49856 3476 ?? I 3:45AM 0:00.01 /usr/local/sbin/httpd www767 0.0 0.7 49856 3476 ?? I 3:45AM 0:00.00 /usr/local/sbin/httpd www768 0.0 0.7 49856 3476 ?? I 3:45AM 0:00.01 /usr/local/sbin/httpd www769 0.0 2.1 50836 10788 ?? I 3:45AM 0:00.07 /usr/local/sbin/httpd www770 0.0 2.3 50936 12172 ?? I 3:45AM 0:00.21 /usr/local/sbin/httpd www771 0.0 0.0 49816 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 /usr/local/sbin/httpd www772 0.0 0.0 49816 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 /usr/local/sbin/httpd www773 0.0 0.0 49816 0 ?? IW - 0:00.00 /usr/local/sbin/httpd postfix774 0.0 0.3 79972 1600 ?? S 3:45AM 0:03.05 MailScanner: waiting for messages (perl5.8.8) postfix775 0.0 0.3 79972 1792 ?? S 3:45AM 0:03.05 MailScanner: waiting for messages (perl5.8.8) postfix776 0.0 0.3 79972 1376 ?? S 3:45AM 0:03.05 MailScanner: waiting for messages (perl5.8.8) postfix777 0.0 14.4 79972 74812 ?? S 3:45AM 0:03.15 MailScanner: waiting for messages (perl5.8.8) mysql 518 0.0 3.7 51508 19184 con- I 3:45AM 0:00.23 /usr/local/libexec/mysqld --defaults-extra-file=/var/db/mysql/my.c Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How to catch a memory leak?
Dear Mailing List, The application vlc (found in ports) when run on FBSD 5.x and 6.x behaves as if there's a memory leak somewhere hidden in it. This is appearing when starting vlc from shell playing a playlist and streaming video over udp to LAN like so: vlc --loop playlist.m3u --sout '#transcode{acodec=mpga,ab=192}:std{access=udp,mux=,dst=239.255.255.255}' The memory of the machine slowly gets eaten until the application ends with the message 'Killed' when the memory has run out. I have adressed this on the vlc forum and I have begun glancing on the massive source code of this very complex application. Kris Kennaway has pointed out that it is most likely an issue with threads. My question is how do I track down a possible memory leak and would there be a tool to monitor (from outside the application) what process that allocates memory and how much? Running it through gdb breaks it and attaching gdp to it while running breaks it. Grateful for any pointers to get me in the right direction. Thanks In Advance. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to catch a memory leak?
On Jan 19, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Roger Olofsson wrote: The application vlc (found in ports) when run on FBSD 5.x and 6.x behaves as if there's a memory leak somewhere hidden in it. [ ... ] My question is how do I track down a possible memory leak and would there be a tool to monitor (from outside the application) what process that allocates memory and how much? Consider something like the valgrind port or dlmalloc. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Memory leak in PHP on FreeBSD
I was reading http://www.bsdnews.com and ran across an article about a memory leak in php and mysql on FreeBSD. This is fairly concerning considering I run quite a few servers with this setup. I haven't been able to find much documentation regarding this subject. It has been reported as a permanent hole which seems odd. However, if there is a problem does anyone have any info? -Tom ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory leak in PHP on FreeBSD
In response to Tom Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I was reading http://www.bsdnews.com and ran across an article about a memory leak in php and mysql on FreeBSD. This is fairly concerning considering I run quite a few servers with this setup. I haven't been able to find much documentation regarding this subject. It has been reported as a permanent hole which seems odd. However, if there is a problem does anyone have any info? Anyone have Tayler's email address? I understand that he doesn't want to get caught in a OS Holy War, but he has to realize that the FreeBSD community needs to know the specifics of the problem so it can be fixed. The email link on his site appears broken. I just want contact information for the people who gave him the report so I can get in touch with them for details. We use PHP extensively, but not MySQL. Personally, if the problem only exists between PHP and MySQL, it's not a major concern with me. If it exists in PHP when MySQL isn't involved, it's a BIG deal ;) -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory leak in PHP on FreeBSD
On 8/30/06, Tom Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was reading http://www.bsdnews.com and ran across an article about a memory leak in php and mysql on FreeBSD. This is fairly concerning considering I run quite a few servers with this setup. I haven't been able to find much documentation regarding this subject. It has been reported as a permanent hole which seems odd. However, if there is a problem does anyone have any info? -Tom yea, i wouldn't really pay attention to this, from the article: I'm just repeating what the server guys have told me. No, I don't want your offer of technical help. betting the admin's may have misunderstood something or misconfigured something... -pete -- ~~o0OO0o~~ Pete Wright www.nycbug.org NYC's *BSD User Group ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory leak?
Robert Leftwich wrote: After running some number crunching for the last twelve hours I noticed my box starting to use swap. Given that it has 4gb in it (of which 3gb is available, see my other email for that issue) and I know that the app never uses more than around 1gb I was surprised. Looking at the numbers from top I was even more surprised, there seems to be a significant chunk of memory unaccounted for (from memory when I checked after a couple of hours the inactive memory was around 1300M with Free in the 400M range, everything basically totalling to around the 3gb mark as expected). The app is driven by a script and is only running for around 1/2 hr per dataset after which it shuts down and restarts on a new dataset, so all memory should be freed up/made inactive after each restart, no? Mem: 274M Active, 227M Inact, 263M Wired, 95M Cache, 214M Buf, 4536K Free Swap: 4068M Total, 707M Used, 3361M Free, 17% Inuse real memory = 3221159936 (3071 MB) avail memory = 3106529280 (2962 MB) What's the best way to track down more information as to the cause of this problem? Do you run other applications also? There was a discussion on CURRENT@ some weeks ago about a memory leak that turned out to be firefox with some extensions, updates are available now. Cheers, Erik ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory leak?
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:29:03 +0100, Erik Norgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Do you run other applications also? There was a discussion on CURRENT@ some weeks ago about a memory leak that turned out to be firefox with some extensions, updates are available now. Unfortunately no, its cli only, no x, pretty much just Postgres and Python and C :-( Robert ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory leak?
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:30:17PM +1100, Robert Leftwich wrote: From: Robert Leftwich [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:29:03 +0100, Erik Norgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Do you run other applications also? There was a discussion on CURRENT@ some weeks ago about a memory leak that turned out to be firefox with some extensions, updates are available now. Unfortunately no, its cli only, no x, pretty much just Postgres and Python and C :-( I've seen (very, very, very, very) large memory leaks on long-lived Python processes. I haven't looked at it to figure out if it's python, some module, or the application doing something stupid. But the processes will grow until they hit their limits. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory leak?
On Feb 13, 2006, at 4:40 PM, David Scheidt wrote: Unfortunately no, its cli only, no x, pretty much just Postgres and Python and C :-( I've seen (very, very, very, very) large memory leaks on long-lived Python processes. I haven't looked at it to figure out if it's python, some module, or the application doing something stupid. But the processes will grow until they hit their limits. For contrast, I've got a Python-based daemon which handles 100K to 1 million logfile lines a day and spits them into a processing/ reporting system using either XMLRPC or SOAP, and it stays up for months without leaking memory or changing in size. As I said earlier, top -o size will identify the process(es) which is/are using excessive memory. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory leak?
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:40:54 -0500, David Scheidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I've seen (very, very, very, very) large memory leaks on long-lived Python processes. I haven't looked at it to figure out if it's python, some module, or the application doing something stupid. But the processes will grow until they hit their limits. What's your definition of long-lived? My scenario is that I'm processing a particular dataset in Python which is launched by a shell script, once finished (after 30-35mins) the Python app completes and the shell script launches another instance on a new dataset. All memory allocated by the finished Python app should be freed/made inactive shouldn't it? Here's some more data: After a reboot this is what top says: Mem: 45M Active, 13M Inact, 61M Wired, 4K Cache, 60M Buf, 2842M Free Swap: 4068M Total, 4068M Free which totals 3021M After 1 dataset it is: Mem: 107M Active, 1919M Inact, 158M Wired, 16K Cache, 214M Buf, 570M Free Swap: 4068M Total, 4068M Free which totals 2968M While running on the 6th dataset: Mem: 1032M Active, 1045M Inact, 260M Wired, 145M Cache, 214M Buf, 4664K Free Swap: 4068M Total, 108K Used, 4068M Free which totals 2700.6M Are my assumptions incorrect, should the totals displayed by top be at least approximately equal? Robert ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory leak?
On Feb 13, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Robert Leftwich wrote: After 1 dataset it is: Mem: 107M Active, 1919M Inact, 158M Wired, 16K Cache, 214M Buf, 570M Free Swap: 4068M Total, 4068M Free which totals 2968M While running on the 6th dataset: Mem: 1032M Active, 1045M Inact, 260M Wired, 145M Cache, 214M Buf, 4664K Free Swap: 4068M Total, 108K Used, 4068M Free which totals 2700.6M Possibly your database is using lots of SysV shared memory, which would explain why wired is going up so much, otherwise perhaps something in the kernel is leaking. sysctl kern.malloc might be interesting to consider. Are my assumptions incorrect, should the totals displayed by top be at least approximately equal? Exclude the buf entry from your math, that will be closer. You should be looking further down at the SIZE column to see which processes are using so much RAM... -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory leak?
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:58:07 -0500, Charles Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Feb 13, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Robert Leftwich wrote: Possibly your database is using lots of SysV shared memory, which would explain why wired is going up so much, otherwise perhaps something in the kernel is leaking. sysctl kern.malloc might be interesting to consider. What should I be looking for? The maximum MemUse is devbuf 2039 8340K, the max InUse is sysctloid 3613 176K. Are my assumptions incorrect, should the totals displayed by top be at least approximately equal? Exclude the buf entry from your math, that will be closer. You should be looking further down at the SIZE column to see which processes are using so much RAM... I can't see anything that explains the discrepancy. Below is the top -o size after a reboot, followed by the current top after 8 datasets (the extra python process is the analysis app - at a low memory usage point): (Note that the original 2 python processes are web servers and that I have 3 postgres clusters running on different ports, pending a move to separate machines - assuming I can solve this problem) PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND 599 msf 1 40 75256K 25408K accept 1 0:00 0.00% python 582 msf 1 760 53772K 5580K select 0 0:00 0.00% postgres 575 msf 1 760 53748K 5288K select 0 0:00 0.00% postgres 588 msf 1 760 53588K 5360K select 0 0:00 0.00% postgres 574 msf 1 760 53564K 5060K select 0 0:00 0.00% postgres 586 msf 1 760 52140K 14988K select 0 0:00 0.00% python 601 root1 40 29388K 3944K sbwait 1 0:00 0.00% sshd 604 msf 1 760 29364K 3996K select 1 0:00 0.00% sshd 578 msf 1 760 29224K 5472K select 0 0:00 0.00% postgres 576 msf 1 760 29216K 5372K select 0 0:00 0.00% postgres 583 msf 1 760 20488K 5224K select 0 0:00 0.00% postgres 589 msf 1 760 20488K 4988K select 0 0:00 0.00% postgres 579 msf 1 760 20484K 5220K select 0 0:00 0.00% postgres 580 msf 1 810 19548K 5284K select 1 0:00 0.00% postgres 584 msf 1 770 19536K 5260K select 1 0:00 0.00% postgres 590 msf 1 760 19512K 5012K select 1 0:00 0.00% postgres PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND 2256 msf 4 200 83228K 31876K kserel 1 0:01 0.00% python 2257 msf 1 40 56340K 19836K sbwait 1 0:00 0.00% postgres 582 msf 1 760 53920K 36916K select 0 0:11 0.00% postgres 575 msf 1 760 53748K 3948K select 0 0:00 0.00% postgres 588 msf 1 760 53708K 36704K select 0 0:03 0.00% postgres 574 msf 1 760 53564K 3856K select 0 0:00 0.00% postgres 586 msf 1 760 52140K 13912K select 0 0:00 0.00% python 2641 root1 40 29388K 2876K sbwait 1 0:00 0.00% sshd 2644 msf 1 760 29364K 2904K select 1 0:00 0.00% sshd 578 msf 1 760 29224K 4140K select 0 0:02 0.00% postgres 576 msf 1 760 29216K 4048K select 0 0:00 0.00% postgres 583 msf 1 760 20488K 3940K select 0 0:00 0.00% postgres 589 msf 1 760 20488K 3808K select 0 0:00 0.00% postgres 579 msf 1 760 20484K 3896K select 0 0:00 0.00% postgres 580 msf 1 810 19548K 3960K select 1 0:00 0.00% postgres 584 msf 1 760 19536K 3936K select 1 0:00 0.00% postgres 590 msf 1 760 19512K 3828K select 1 0:00 0.00% postgres Robert ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory leak?
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:00:46 +1100, Robert Leftwich I can't see anything that explains the discrepancy. Below is the top -o size after a reboot, followed by the current top after 8 datasets (the extra python process is the analysis app - at a low memory usage point): Oops, just noticed that the analysis app was at a *really* low memory usage point, i.e. it wasn't running at all, having spat the dummy on some bad data! So there wasn't any extra python app. Robert ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Memory leak?
After running some number crunching for the last twelve hours I noticed my box starting to use swap. Given that it has 4gb in it (of which 3gb is available, see my other email for that issue) and I know that the app never uses more than around 1gb I was surprised. Looking at the numbers from top I was even more surprised, there seems to be a significant chunk of memory unaccounted for (from memory when I checked after a couple of hours the inactive memory was around 1300M with Free in the 400M range, everything basically totalling to around the 3gb mark as expected). The app is driven by a script and is only running for around 1/2 hr per dataset after which it shuts down and restarts on a new dataset, so all memory should be freed up/made inactive after each restart, no? Mem: 274M Active, 227M Inact, 263M Wired, 95M Cache, 214M Buf, 4536K Free Swap: 4068M Total, 707M Used, 3361M Free, 17% Inuse real memory = 3221159936 (3071 MB) avail memory = 3106529280 (2962 MB) What's the best way to track down more information as to the cause of this problem? Thanks Robert ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory leak?
Robert Leftwich wrote: [ ... ] Mem: 274M Active, 227M Inact, 263M Wired, 95M Cache, 214M Buf, 4536K Free Swap: 4068M Total, 707M Used, 3361M Free, 17% Inuse real memory = 3221159936 (3071 MB) avail memory = 3106529280 (2962 MB) What's the best way to track down more information as to the cause of this problem? Try top -o size... -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache error logs memory leak
I keep getting errors in my apache error logs with the following: Is this a problem with PHP? /usr/ports/textproc/php5-xml/work/php-5.1.1/ext/xml/xml.c(695) : Freeing 0x0882 B624 (32 bytes), script=/usr/local/www/groupoffice-com-2.14-FINAL-4/modules/phps ysinfo/index.php /usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.1.1/Zend/zend_hash.c(169) : Actual location (loc ation was relayed) Last leak repeated 1 time /usr/ports/textproc/php5-xml/work/php-5.1.1/ext/xml/xml.c(694) : Freeing 0x0882 3BE4 (16 bytes), script=/usr/local/www/groupoffice-com-2.14-FINAL-4/modules/phps ysinfo/index.php /usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.1.1/Zend/zend_execute_API.c(462) : Freeing 0x08 823124 (16 bytes), script=/usr/local/www/groupoffice-com-2.14-FINAL-4/modules/ph psysinfo/index.php Last leak repeated 1 time Zend/zend_language_scanner.c(4938) : Freeing 0x088769E4 (1 bytes), script=/usr/ local/www/groupoffice-com-2.14-FINAL-4/modules/phpsysinfo/index.php /usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.1.1/Zend/zend_compile.c(3200) : Freeing 0x08876 9A4 (16 bytes), script=/usr/local/www/groupoffice-com-2.14-FINAL-4/modules/phpsy sinfo/index.php Last leak repeated 3 times === Total 2791 memory leaks detected === Thanks in advance, Jose ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Top loses memory over time? Memory leak?
Okay, here's the background. I thought top was displaying my memory stats oddly, so I ran a little test. I rebooted the pc, logged into the console as a normal user, and ran top. I did this at around midnight last night / this morning. I let it run until I got home from work, (6:15 today) So that's about... 18 hours. Here are my results. First, when I started last night. 29 processes: 1 running, 28 sleeping CPU states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.2% system, 6.0% interrupt, 93.8% idle Mem: 8120K Active, 8372K Inact, 17M Wired, 8576K Buf, 460M Free Swap: 980M Total, 980M Free Now, the one from when I got home: 25 processes: 1 running, 24 sleeping CPU states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.4% system, 8.9% interrupt, 90.7% idle Mem: 7400K Active, 249M Inact, 68M Wired, 60M Buf, 170M Free Swap: 980M Total, 980M Free This machine sat unattended all day. What could be causing the drastic drop in Free memory? Is this normal? When I actually use the machine, it's even worse... Almost all of my RAM goes from Free to other various states, Mostly Inactive, even after I've closed all the programs I've had open, rather quickly (maybe an hour or two) For reference, the uname -a: FreeBSD Empathy 5.3-STABLE FreeBSD 5.3-STABLE #0: Sun Nov 7 21:38:11 EST 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 (Dual processor, PIII 1.0ghz, 512M Ram) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Top loses memory over time? Memory leak?
Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This machine sat unattended all day. What could be causing the drastic drop in Free memory? Is this normal? When I actually use the machine, it's even worse... Almost all of my RAM goes from Free to other various states, Mostly Inactive, even after I've closed all the programs I've had open, rather quickly (maybe an hour or two) See the FAQ, but basically the answer is Free memory is wasted memory. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Memory leak in Perl?
I'm running perl-threaded-5.8.4 from ports to support spf-milter http://spf.pobox.com/sendmail-milter-INSTALL.txt Perl seems to eat memory over a few hours and eventually dies. Most spf-milter users report memory usage of ~25MB, but I've seen memory use in excess of 110MB. I know there was a memory leak reported in Perl 5.8.2 but I've found nothing on 5.8.4. Has anyone else experienced this with threaded perl? Regards, Chris Chris Miller NetGate Internet An iStrata Company ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
netscape memory leak
sorry if this quistion has allread been asked and awnsered.. i got noticeing that my system was runnung out of mem so i did top and this is what i found PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU CPU COMMAND 9936 dave -22 0 219M 98M RUN 16:03 46.04% 46.04% netscape-bin 15211 dave 31 0 2056K 964K RUN 0:08 3.37% 3.37% top 3 root -18 0 0K 0K psleep 4:08 2.93% 2.93% pagedaemon 99894 dave 2 0 21268K 2212K poll 79:20 1.90% 1.90% kdeinit 9941 dave 10 0 219M 98M nanslp 0:21 0.20% 0.20% netscape-bin 99870 dave 2 0 59268K 18568K select 63:32 0.00% 0.00% XFree86 netscape was takeing up 98 mem of ram si closed netscape and then did top agine and i found this PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU CPU COMMAND 9936 dave -22 0 247M 102M swread 17:55 6.64% 6.64% netscape-bin 9941 dave 18 0 247M 102M pause 0:23 0.00% 0.00% netscape-bin now it was takeing up 102 meg of ram so my quistion is this what would be causeing netscape to be useing up so much ram? and how do i fix it? Netscape 7.1 Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 uname -a FreeBSD vampextream.com 4.9-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE #0: Mon Oct 27 17:51:09 GMT 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386 thx in advance for any help any one can give me on this .. David D. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/2004 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: netscape memory leak
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:38:49PM -0700, whitevamp wrote: sorry if this quistion has allread been asked and awnsered.. i got noticeing that my system was runnung out of mem so i did top and this is what i found PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU CPU COMMAND 9936 dave -22 0 219M 98M RUN 16:03 46.04% 46.04% netscape-bin 15211 dave 31 0 2056K 964K RUN 0:08 3.37% 3.37% top 3 root -18 0 0K 0K psleep 4:08 2.93% 2.93% pagedaemon 99894 dave 2 0 21268K 2212K poll 79:20 1.90% 1.90% kdeinit 9941 dave 10 0 219M 98M nanslp 0:21 0.20% 0.20% netscape-bin 99870 dave 2 0 59268K 18568K select 63:32 0.00% 0.00% XFree86 netscape was takeing up 98 mem of ram si closed netscape and then did top agine and i found this PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU CPU COMMAND 9936 dave -22 0 247M 102M swread 17:55 6.64% 6.64% netscape-bin 9941 dave 18 0 247M 102M pause 0:23 0.00% 0.00% netscape-bin now it was takeing up 102 meg of ram so my quistion is this what would be causeing netscape to be useing up so much ram? and how do i fix it? Netscape 7.1 Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 uname -a FreeBSD vampextream.com 4.9-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE #0: Mon Oct 27 17:51:09 GMT 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386 thx in advance for any help any one can give me on this .. Netscape and Mozilla and presumable some other related browsers have a failure mode where either the on-screen windows freeze or disappear, but the actual binary is left running in a catatonic state where it just spins and takes up system resources but doesn't do anything useful. Generally I've seen this triggered by websites using Flash animation and a few other data types which Netscape has to load a plugin to deal with. It can also sometimes leave some 'helper' applications running in the same sort of disconnected state. The only thing to do in those cases is kill all of the catatonic processes, and learn to avoid the sites that cause the problems. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK pgpmJfDSPcl0R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Ethereal: memory leak?
Hello everyone! I have just noticed that ethereal eats a lot of memory. Currently it has no capture running and no file loaded. Previous analyzied file was about 56Mbytes. But it was closed. Is this behavior normal? Mem: 111M Active, 15M Inact, 46M Wired, 6820K Cache, 28M Buf, 564K Free Swap: 384M Total, 331M Used, 53M Free, 86% Inuse PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZERES STATETIME WCPUCPU COMMAND 6201 lxxx 960 298M 92316K select 3:07 0.00% 0.00% ethereal Cheers, Alex. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
memory 'leak' with 5.2.1?
That does seem excessive. From my -CURRENT system (admittedly up less that 24 hours): Mem: 179M Active, 190M Inact, 93M Wired, 25M Cache, 60M Buf, 7044K Indeed :\ After a reboot, it was great. The system became all responsive again, and it didn't swap anymore (applications were actually going into RAM and not into swap..). I have no idea at all why this behavior occured. -- Regards, wK (www.doubleukay.com) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
memory 'leak' with 5.2.1?
Hi list, I have been running 5.2.1 on a Celeron with 512MB RAM for nearly two months straight, but have been experiencing heavy swapping these past few days. In a last-ditch attempt, I stopped all the services hoping to reclaim the memory somehow. The output from top (after stopping services) reads: Mem: 12M Active, 10M Inact, 451M Wired, 1364K Cache, 59M Buf, 11M Free Swap: 1024M Total, 15M Used, 1009M Free, 1% Inuse, 12K In I noticed that the amount of 'wired' memory before and after stopping the services remains the same, at 400MB. The swap usage went down from ~200MB to 15MB however. Is it normal to have so much RAM 'wired'? (I don't really understand 'wired' as described in the handbook) -- Regards, wK (www.doubleukay.com) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
memory 'leak' with 5.2.1?
Woon Wai Keen @ doubleukay.com writes: The output from top (after stopping services) reads: Mem: 12M Active, 10M Inact, 451M Wired, 1364K Cache, 59M Buf, 11M Free Swap: 1024M Total, 15M Used, 1009M Free, 1% Inuse, 12K In I noticed that the amount of 'wired' memory before and after stopping the services remains the same, at 400MB. The swap usage went down from ~200MB to 15MB however. That does seem excessive. From my -CURRENT system (admittedly up less that 24 hours): Mem: 179M Active, 190M Inact, 93M Wired, 25M Cache, 60M Buf, 7044K Free Robert Huff ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tool for detecting memory leak in FreeBSD 4.8
Hi , I didn't find any memory detection tool foir FreeBSD 4.8. Any idea how can i detect memory leaks in freeBSD 4.8 Looking for an early reply. Thanks Jitendra - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tool for detecting memory leak in FreeBSD 4.8
In the last episode (Apr 12), jitendra pande said: I didn't find any memory detection tool foir FreeBSD 4.8. Any idea how can i detect memory leaks in freeBSD 4.8 dmalloc in ports (ports/devel/dmalloc) is very useful for catching leaks. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory leak on 5.1-RELEASE?
Are you sure that there isn't anything else running? Why don't you give us an ps -ax output? I don't think there's a memory leak in 5.1, since I've seen running 5.1 just fine on a PE2650 with 2 GB RAM. You shouldn't rely on top too much acually. Vmstat is a better program when looking at memory. Cheers, Jorn - Original Message - From: dpk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 1:10 AM Subject: Memory leak on 5.1-RELEASE? (I'm not a member of the list; please Cc me on any replies.) We're running Apache 1.3.28 on a 5.1-RELEASE machine. It's a Dell PE 2650 w/ 2GB RAM. The site contains a lot of large files (multi-megabyte) - otherwise there's nothing unusual running. The Active memory use, according to top, seems rather high: last pid: 21487; load averages: 0.19, 0.33, 0.32up 2+16:45:20 15:52:21 76 processes: 1 running, 75 sleeping CPU states: 0.5% user, 0.0% nice, 4.0% system, 1.4% interrupt, 94.2% idle Mem: 1413M Active, 187M Inact, 299M Wired, 93M Cache, 112M Buf, 2632K Free Swap: 1024M Total, 21M Used, 1003M Free, 2% Inuse We can't seem to get the Active number down much, even after stopping Apache it still stays around 1100M. There's no shared memory in use, and nothing in vmstat -m seems to indicate where the missing memory is. top, sorting by size, does not indicate anything unusual either. sysctl vm.vmtotal says: vm.vmtotal: System wide totals computed every five seconds: (values in kilobytes) === Processes: (RUNQ: 1 Disk Wait: 0 Page Wait: 0 Sleep: 76) Virtual Memory: (Total: 8172K, Active 636472K) Real Memory:(Total: 2051312K Active 389176K) Shared Virtual Memory: (Total: 16436K Active: 11760K) Shared Real Memory: (Total: 6004K Active: 4436K) Free Memory Pages: 79228K whereas on other servers, the Real Memory Active number seems to match the one found in top, on this one it is about 1GB lower. A similar machine running Apache on 5.1-R, generally serving smaller files, has the same problem in a smaller scale (about 640M even when Apache is stopped). Are there any other data that I should send to help diagnose this problem, or any programs I can run to try and track this stray memory use down? - dpk ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory leak on 5.1-RELEASE?
leak in 5.1, since I've seen running 5.1 just fine on a PE2650 with 2 GB RAM. You shouldn't rely on top too much acually. Vmstat is a better program when looking at memory. Cheers, Jorn - Original Message - From: dpk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 1:10 AM Subject: Memory leak on 5.1-RELEASE? (I'm not a member of the list; please Cc me on any replies.) We're running Apache 1.3.28 on a 5.1-RELEASE machine. It's a Dell PE 2650 w/ 2GB RAM. The site contains a lot of large files (multi-megabyte) - otherwise there's nothing unusual running. The Active memory use, according to top, seems rather high: last pid: 21487; load averages: 0.19, 0.33, 0.32up 2+16:45:20 15:52:21 76 processes: 1 running, 75 sleeping CPU states: 0.5% user, 0.0% nice, 4.0% system, 1.4% interrupt, 94.2% idle Mem: 1413M Active, 187M Inact, 299M Wired, 93M Cache, 112M Buf, 2632K Free Swap: 1024M Total, 21M Used, 1003M Free, 2% Inuse We can't seem to get the Active number down much, even after stopping Apache it still stays around 1100M. There's no shared memory in use, and nothing in vmstat -m seems to indicate where the missing memory is. top, sorting by size, does not indicate anything unusual either. sysctl vm.vmtotal says: vm.vmtotal: System wide totals computed every five seconds: (values in kilobytes) === Processes: (RUNQ: 1 Disk Wait: 0 Page Wait: 0 Sleep: 76) Virtual Memory: (Total: 8172K, Active 636472K) Real Memory:(Total: 2051312K Active 389176K) Shared Virtual Memory: (Total: 16436K Active: 11760K) Shared Real Memory: (Total: 6004K Active: 4436K) Free Memory Pages: 79228K whereas on other servers, the Real Memory Active number seems to match the one found in top, on this one it is about 1GB lower. A similar machine running Apache on 5.1-R, generally serving smaller files, has the same problem in a smaller scale (about 640M even when Apache is stopped). Are there any other data that I should send to help diagnose this problem, or any programs I can run to try and track this stray memory use down? - dpk ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory leak on 5.1-RELEASE?
/bin/httpd -f /usr/local/www/server/conf/ht 56897 ?? S 0:00.02 /usr/local/bin/httpd -f /usr/local/www/server/conf/ht 56898 ?? S 0:00.03 /usr/local/bin/httpd -f /usr/local/www/server/conf/ht 56900 ?? S 0:00.03 /usr/local/bin/httpd -f /usr/local/www/server/conf/ht 56577 p0 Ss 0:00.02 -sh (sh) 56904 p0 R+ 0:00.00 ps -ax 3574 v0 Is+0:00.00 /usr/libexec/getty Pc ttyv0 868 v1 Is+0:00.00 /usr/libexec/getty Pc ttyv1 869 v2 Is+0:00.00 /usr/libexec/getty Pc ttyv2 870 v3 Is+0:00.00 /usr/libexec/getty Pc ttyv3 871 v4 Is+0:00.00 /usr/libexec/getty Pc ttyv4 872 v5 Is+0:00.00 /usr/libexec/getty Pc ttyv5 873 v6 Is+0:00.00 /usr/libexec/getty Pc ttyv6 874 v7 Is+0:00.00 /usr/libexec/getty Pc ttyv7 520 con- I 0:02.81 /usr/local/sbin/snmpd 534 con- I 0:00.01 /bin/sh /usr/local/bin/mysqld_safe --datadir=/usr/loc 566 con- S138:26.09 /usr/local/libexec/mysqld --basedir=/usr/local --data According to top and ps, mysql is only using around 59M VSZ. On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Jorn Argelo wrote: Are you sure that there isn't anything else running? Why don't you give us an ps -ax output? I don't think there's a memory leak in 5.1, since I've seen running 5.1 just fine on a PE2650 with 2 GB RAM. You shouldn't rely on top too much acually. Vmstat is a better program when looking at memory. Cheers, Jorn - Original Message - From: dpk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 1:10 AM Subject: Memory leak on 5.1-RELEASE? (I'm not a member of the list; please Cc me on any replies.) We're running Apache 1.3.28 on a 5.1-RELEASE machine. It's a Dell PE 2650 w/ 2GB RAM. The site contains a lot of large files (multi-megabyte) - otherwise there's nothing unusual running. The Active memory use, according to top, seems rather high: last pid: 21487; load averages: 0.19, 0.33, 0.32up 2+16:45:20 15:52:21 76 processes: 1 running, 75 sleeping CPU states: 0.5% user, 0.0% nice, 4.0% system, 1.4% interrupt, 94.2% idle Mem: 1413M Active, 187M Inact, 299M Wired, 93M Cache, 112M Buf, 2632K Free Swap: 1024M Total, 21M Used, 1003M Free, 2% Inuse We can't seem to get the Active number down much, even after stopping Apache it still stays around 1100M. There's no shared memory in use, and nothing in vmstat -m seems to indicate where the missing memory is. top, sorting by size, does not indicate anything unusual either. sysctl vm.vmtotal says: vm.vmtotal: System wide totals computed every five seconds: (values in kilobytes) === Processes: (RUNQ: 1 Disk Wait: 0 Page Wait: 0 Sleep: 76) Virtual Memory: (Total: 8172K, Active 636472K) Real Memory:(Total: 2051312K Active 389176K) Shared Virtual Memory: (Total: 16436K Active: 11760K) Shared Real Memory: (Total: 6004K Active: 4436K) Free Memory Pages: 79228K whereas on other servers, the Real Memory Active number seems to match the one found in top, on this one it is about 1GB lower. A similar machine running Apache on 5.1-R, generally serving smaller files, has the same problem in a smaller scale (about 640M even when Apache is stopped). Are there any other data that I should send to help diagnose this problem, or any programs I can run to try and track this stray memory use down? - dpk ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Memory leak on 5.1-RELEASE?
(I'm not a member of the list; please Cc me on any replies.) We're running Apache 1.3.28 on a 5.1-RELEASE machine. It's a Dell PE 2650 w/ 2GB RAM. The site contains a lot of large files (multi-megabyte) - otherwise there's nothing unusual running. The Active memory use, according to top, seems rather high: last pid: 21487; load averages: 0.19, 0.33, 0.32up 2+16:45:20 15:52:21 76 processes: 1 running, 75 sleeping CPU states: 0.5% user, 0.0% nice, 4.0% system, 1.4% interrupt, 94.2% idle Mem: 1413M Active, 187M Inact, 299M Wired, 93M Cache, 112M Buf, 2632K Free Swap: 1024M Total, 21M Used, 1003M Free, 2% Inuse We can't seem to get the Active number down much, even after stopping Apache it still stays around 1100M. There's no shared memory in use, and nothing in vmstat -m seems to indicate where the missing memory is. top, sorting by size, does not indicate anything unusual either. sysctl vm.vmtotal says: vm.vmtotal: System wide totals computed every five seconds: (values in kilobytes) === Processes: (RUNQ: 1 Disk Wait: 0 Page Wait: 0 Sleep: 76) Virtual Memory: (Total: 8172K, Active 636472K) Real Memory:(Total: 2051312K Active 389176K) Shared Virtual Memory: (Total: 16436K Active: 11760K) Shared Real Memory: (Total: 6004K Active: 4436K) Free Memory Pages: 79228K whereas on other servers, the Real Memory Active number seems to match the one found in top, on this one it is about 1GB lower. A similar machine running Apache on 5.1-R, generally serving smaller files, has the same problem in a smaller scale (about 640M even when Apache is stopped). Are there any other data that I should send to help diagnose this problem, or any programs I can run to try and track this stray memory use down? - dpk ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
memory leak problem
Hi, Woops, sorry about my other asdf spam email.. :-) This might be a stupid/obvious question but dmalloc is reporting that I have a memory leak in the following (test) program and I don't know why: #include stdio.h #include stdlib.h #include dmalloc.h int main(int argc, char **argv) { char *c = malloc(10); strcpy(c, hello); printf(c=%s\n, c); free(c); return 1; } dmalloc is installed in my account and I compiled it with: gcc -g test.c -o test /home/izzo/usr/lib/libdmalloc.a -I/home/izzo/usr/include I set dmalloc up with: dmalloc -i 200 -l dmlog high and at the end of my log file (snipped for brevity) is: 1045066226: 3: total-size count in-use-size count source 1045066226: 3:4096 14096 1 ra=0x280e57ec 1045066226: 3: 10 1 0 0 test.c:7 1045066226: 3:4106 24096 1 Total of 2 1045066226: 3: dumping not-freed pointers changed since 0: 1045066226: 3: not freed: '0x808f008|s1' (4096 bytes) from 'ra=0x280e57ec' 1045066226: 3: total-size count source 1045066226: 3:4096 1 ra=0x280e57ec 1045066226: 3:4096 1 Total of 1 1045066226: 3: unknown memory: 1 pointer, 4096 bytes Supposedly there is a 4096 byte memory leak. The same program on my Slackware Linux box reports no leaks. I'm using 4.7-RELEASE. Does anyone have any ideas? The same program on a friend's 4.5-RELEASE box reports a 1024 byte leak. Is dmalloc just not FreeBSD-friendly? Thanks sam To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message