On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 03:50:59PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:54:55PM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
You'll have to re-add the memcache_is_talloc()
function (which I deleted :-).
If you're okay with it, I would re-add it. :-)
I'd prefer the memcache_add_talloc()
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:33:19AM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 03:50:59PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:54:55PM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
You'll have to re-add the memcache_is_talloc()
function (which I deleted :-).
If you're okay
Hallo, Volker,
Du (Volker.Lendecke) meintest am 13.11.08:
[...]
No, that sounds like a memleak. 13.6MB is way too much, I
would expect more like 3-5MB.
First shot: Can you issue a
smbcontrol smbd-pid pool-usage
where smbd-pid is the process ID of such a large smbd, and
send the output?
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 09:15:00AM +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote:
First shot: Can you issue a
smbcontrol smbd-pid pool-usage
where smbd-pid is the process ID of such a large smbd, and
send the output?
Does
smbcontrol smbd-pid pool-usage | grep total
reach for a quick
Hallo, Volker,
Du (Volker.Lendecke) meintest am 13.11.08:
First shot: Can you issue a
smbcontrol smbd-pid pool-usage
where smbd-pid is the process ID of such a large smbd, and
send the output?
Does
smbcontrol smbd-pid pool-usage | grep total
reach for a quick diagnosis, or
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 09:35:00AM +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote:
full talloc report on 'null_context' (total 11696 bytes in 244
blocks) msg_pool_usage contains527 bytes in 3
blocks (ref 0) char contains512
[...]
Yes - I've
Hi, thank you for the reply. I have set my server to run into 'init 3',
trying to decrease any resources as low as possible so (server stop to
response again - had to restart it) so I cannot go to system monitor again.
But I have captured the result of smbcontrol command. (see attachment).
Thanx
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 04:19:40PM +0700, FC Mario Patty wrote:
Hi, thank you for the reply. I have set my server to run into 'init 3',
trying to decrease any resources as low as possible so (server stop to
response again - had to restart it) so I cannot go to system monitor again.
But I have
Hi Volker,
That was the whole output I sent. And now regarding to valgrind, we're
running x86 here so that would not be a problem. But, I've never used that
tool before. Should I stop samba first or ...? It's a production server so
I'm scare to ruin something here with my stupid action. :|
Yes, you're right. But that was faster than having to restart the server. :(
But again, how to run samba under valgrind? I tried
valgrind --tool=memcheck --trace-children=yes smbd
but samba won't run except valgrind. :(
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Volker Lendecke
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 04:50:48PM +0700, FC Mario Patty wrote:
Yes, you're right. But that was faster than having to restart the server. :(
But again, how to run samba under valgrind? I tried
valgrind --tool=memcheck --trace-children=yes smbd
but samba won't run except valgrind. :(
Hmm.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 04:38:41PM +0700, FC Mario Patty wrote:
That was the whole output I sent. And now regarding to valgrind, we're
running x86 here so that would not be a problem. But, I've never used that
tool before. Should I stop samba first or ...? It's a production server so
I'm scare
Thank you for your reply. Please see attachment.
PS. I cannot get all the output since I cannot scroll up the console. :|
Regards,
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Volker Lendecke
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 05:27:55PM +0700, FC Mario Patty wrote:
Hi, I have run
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 06:05:48PM +0700, FC Mario Patty wrote:
Thank you. I tried redirecting with '' first but got not much of the log.
Here are the result with --log-file option. Thanx again.
H. This does not show any memory leaks. Is this really
smbd that is eating memory? Did you check
Hi,
I tried your suggestion and here what shown in my console.
top - 18:19:19 up 3:52, 4 users, load average: 0.04, 0.28, 0.76
Tasks: 120 total, 1 running, 119 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 0.5% us, 0.7% sy, 0.0% ni, 98.8% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
Mem: 1034040k
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 06:23:45PM +0700, FC Mario Patty wrote:
Hi,
I tried your suggestion and here what shown in my console.
top - 18:19:19 up 3:52, 4 users, load average: 0.04, 0.28, 0.76
Tasks: 120 total, 1 running, 119 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 0.5% us, 0.7%
Well, this is my current top. You can see that smbd's use 12Mb in average.
I'll check this 820 even though I'm not really sure what is it. Thank you.
top - 18:57:30 up 4:30, 4 users, load average: 5.06, 3.36, 2.05
Tasks: 162 total, 6 running, 156 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s):
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND
10501 root15 0 1690m 276m 828 S 0.0 27.4 1:01.48 820
12333 tarmini25 0 31128 26m 1532 R 26.8 2.6 0:00.81 cc1
12342 tarmini25 0 28592 22m 1532 R 24.8 2.3 0:00.75 cc1
2577 root16 0
How large is large for a smbd process? Does it just use what is
available or what? My fileserver at work (32 core sparc T2, with 32GB
RAM) currently has 117 smbd processes running each with 29M total, 24M
resident. It looks like my servers processes are more than twice the
size as these
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 01:34:28PM +0100, Mike Gallamore wrote:
How large is large for a smbd process? Does it just use what is
available or what? My fileserver at work (32 core sparc T2, with 32GB
RAM) currently has 117 smbd processes running each with 29M total, 24M
resident. It looks
Hi, I have run valgrind and get the result. Please see attachment. Thank
you.
Regards,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# valgrind --tool=memcheck --trace-children=yes
/etc/init.d/smb start
==10131== Memcheck, a memory error detector for x86-linux.
==10131== Copyright (C) 2002-2004, and GNU GPL'd, by
Similar on Solaris, they have a built in utility called pmap:
pmap pid gives output just about total virtual memory, ex:
FF3F6000 8K rwx-- /lib/ld.so.1
FF3FA000 8K rwxs-[ anon ]
FFBE 128K rwx--[ stack ]
total 29632K
pmap -x pid gives extended info ex:
FF3F6000
Hi Volker, all!
Yesterday I reported a memleak in the smbd on the technical mailing list
with an attached pool-usage dump.
I still do not fully understand the talloc system nor the memcache
functions, but as we currently have your attention on this topic :-)
samba-3.2.4 -
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 05:27:55PM +0700, FC Mario Patty wrote:
Hi, I have run valgrind and get the result. Please see attachment. Thank
you.
Aeh, ok, sorry. The argument list you need is:
valgrind --tool=memcheck --leak-check=yes -v --num-callers=20
--trace-children=yes
I had forgotten the
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 02:29:38PM +0100, Mike Gallamore wrote:
Similar on Solaris, they have a built in utility called pmap:
pmap pid gives output just about total virtual memory, ex:
FF3F6000 8K rwx-- /lib/ld.so.1
FF3FA000 8K rwxs-[ anon ]
FFBE 128K rwx--[
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 05:47:46PM +0700, FC Mario Patty wrote:
Thank you for your reply. Please see attachment.
PS. I cannot get all the output since I cannot scroll up the console. :|
Either redirect the output via or use --log-file=
Volker
pgpcDwgLwIqBB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Sorry forgot to include the list.
From: Mike Gallamore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: November 13, 2008 3:49:21 PM GMT+01:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba memory usage - how big is it?
I didn't include the whole output which would be about a page. Yeah
it is just a total
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 02:24:46PM +0100, Martin Zielinski wrote:
Hi Volker, all!
Yesterday I reported a memleak in the smbd on the technical mailing list
with an attached pool-usage dump.
I still do not fully understand the talloc system nor the memcache
functions, but as we currently
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 03:49:51PM +0100, Mike Gallamore wrote:
Sorry forgot to include the list.
From: Mike Gallamore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: November 13, 2008 3:49:21 PM GMT+01:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba memory usage - how big is it?
I didn't include the whole
: [Samba] Samba memory usage - how big is it?
I didn't include the whole output which would be about a page. Yeah
it is just a total of the columns. There is commands for excluding
shared memory regions, anonymously allocated parts etc.
If the 29632k include shared memory regions, then you can
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 02:24:46PM +0100, Martin Zielinski wrote:
Hi Volker, all!
Yesterday I reported a memleak in the smbd on the technical mailing list
with an attached pool-usage dump.
Actually I'm not sure it was a 'leak' technically, it may
have been a too long delayed free from the
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 02:03:39PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 02:24:46PM +0100, Martin Zielinski wrote:
Hi Volker, all!
Yesterday I reported a memleak in the smbd on the technical mailing list
with an attached pool-usage dump.
Actually I'm not sure it was a
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:54:55PM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 02:03:39PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 02:24:46PM +0100, Martin Zielinski wrote:
Hi Volker, all!
Yesterday I reported a memleak in the smbd on the technical mailing list
Hi,
I'd upgraded samba to v3.0.32 last Sunday before our samba server started to
hang. Every day we have to restart our server 2-3 times (today I just
restart it once). I can see via System Monitor that 33 of our users each
(pid) consume 13.6Mb (average) of memory. Our server only have 1Gb of RAM
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 02:00:06PM +0700, FC Mario Patty wrote:
I'd upgraded samba to v3.0.32 last Sunday before our samba server started to
hang. Every day we have to restart our server 2-3 times (today I just
restart it once). I can see via System Monitor that 33 of our users each
(pid)
35 matches
Mail list logo
