2009/11/6 Dorr H. Clark dcl...@engr.scu.edu:
We believe we have identified a significant resource leak
present in 6.x, 7.x, and 8.x. We believe this is a regression
versus FreeBSD 4.x which appears to do the Right Thing (tm).
We have a test program (see below) which will run the system
We believe we have identified a significant resource leak
present in 6.x, 7.x, and 8.x. We believe this is a regression
versus FreeBSD 4.x which appears to do the Right Thing (tm).
We have a test program (see below) which will run the system
out of sockets by repeated exercise of the failing
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 16:36 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Robert Watson wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Gary Palmer wrote:
ps alxw may be of interest in addition to ps auxw as it displays
what the processes are waiting on. It could conceivably be a problem
of some kind at the filesystem
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Stephen Clark wrote:
A big part of problem is this seems to take about 100 days of uptime to
occur. We have some inhouse test boxes but have never seen the problem,
probably because non of them have been up more than about 45 days. The units
in the field, of which there
Hello List,
I am running into a strange problem that points to a resource leak. The problem
manifests itself after one of our remote systems has been up around 100 days.
The symptom is that it appears no new processes can be spawned. If I try to
ssh to the unit, I can see the 3-way tcp
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 07:41:56AM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Hello List,
I am running into a strange problem that points to a resource leak. The
problem manifests itself after one of our remote systems has been up
around 100 days.
The symptom is that it appears no new processes can
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 07:41:56AM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Hello List,
I am running into a strange problem that points to a resource leak. The
problem manifests itself after one of our remote systems has been up
around 100 days.
The symptom is that it appears
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 08:30:26AM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 07:41:56AM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Hello List,
I am running into a strange problem that points to a resource leak.
The problem manifests itself after one of our remote systems
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 08:30:26AM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 07:41:56AM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Hello List,
I am running into a strange problem that points to a resource leak.
The problem manifests itself after one
Thanks, but after reading the thread is there a single place in the kernel
that reports the how many fds are currently in use? Does the no more fds
message get logged in /var/log/messages or only in the kernel log buffer,
since I haven't seen that message in the messages file, and since we
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 04:50:46AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 07:41:56AM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Hello List,
I am running into a strange problem that points to a resource leak. The
problem manifests itself after one of our remote systems has been up
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Gary Palmer wrote:
Periodically logging ps -auxw output to a file would be useful, as
ideally you'd gradually see the list get longer and longer over time; it's
possible you have many zombie processes as a result of a parent which is
not reaping its children (calling
Robert Watson wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Gary Palmer wrote:
Periodically logging ps -auxw output to a file would be useful, as
ideally you'd gradually see the list get longer and longer over time;
it's possible you have many zombie processes as a result of a parent
which is not reaping its
-On [20010127 05:05], Bill Moran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I'm having trouble with BIND in 4.2-STABLE (Jan 18 22:16:33)
I'm running the version of BIND that installs by default (named -v
reports 8.2.3-T6B)
[snip RAM problem]
Has anyone else seen this, or have I got some unique problem here?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeroen Ruigrok van
der Werv
en writes:
-On [20010127 05:05], Bill Moran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I'm having trouble with BIND in 4.2-STABLE (Jan 18 22:16:33)
I'm running the version of BIND that installs by default (named -v
reports 8.2.3-T6B)
[snip RAM
15 matches
Mail list logo
