On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 18:15 -0700, Jesus M. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brian Kosick <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I just upgraded to 0.4 from 0.3, I was seeing these errors under 0.3 as > > well. > > > > This is on a server that runs spacewalk and a mercurial repo. The Specs > > are > > > > Dual Dual Core Xeons, 4GB of RAM, 8GB Swap and a 3TB array. > > > > It mostly occurs when I try to delete software packages... anywhere from > > the default page display of 50 (-500) Though I can be doing other > > things as well like trying to manage/deploy configs to more than a few > > servers at a time. > > > > > > [Fri Jan 16 17:25:13 2009] (29909) Apache2::SizeLimit httpd process too > > big, exiting at SIZE=444864 KB SHARE=12964 KB REQUESTS=2 LIFETIME=0 > > seconds > > [Fri Jan 16 17:25:13 2009] (29912) Apache2::SizeLimit httpd process too > > big, exiting at SIZE=444996 KB SHARE=12964 KB REQUESTS=2 LIFETIME=0 > > seconds > > [Fri Jan 16 17:25:14 2009] (29910) Apache2::SizeLimit httpd process too > > big, exiting at SIZE=444952 KB SHARE=12800 KB REQUESTS=2 LIFETIME=0 > > seconds > > [Fri Jan 16 17:25:14 2009[Fri Jan 16 17:25:14 2009] (29911) > > Apache2::SizeLimit httpd process too big, exiting at SIZE=445084 KB > > SHARE=12892 KB REQUESTS=2 LIFETIME=0 seconds > > [Fri Jan 16 17:25:14 2009] (29922) Apache2::SizeLimit httpd process too > > big, exiting at SIZE=445084 KB SHARE=12896 KB REQUESTS=2 LIFETIME=0 > > seconds > > [Fri Jan 16 17:25:14 2009] (29913) Apache2::SizeLimit httpd process too > > big, exiting at SIZE=445084 KB SHARE=12896 KB REQUESTS=2 LIFETIME=0 > > seconds > > ] (29914) Apache2::SizeLimit httpd process too big, exiting at > > SIZE=445084 KB SHARE=12896 KB REQUESTS=2 LIFETIME=0 seconds > > > > Any suggestions? > > > > Sadly that's a bug we've been chasing for quite some time. Most recently > reported here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465796 > > I think it's a memory leak because if you increase the SizeLimit it > will continue > to grow, I haven't been able to find a value where it stabilizes. If > you have the > memory, you might want to try setting it to 1_024_000 to see if it helps. > > It seems to also only affect the perl stack, as the python and java seem to > do well with memory (at least they seem to level off at some maximum > threshold). > > Another tidbit is this ONLY affects 64-bit Spacewalk. We have not been able > to get this to happen on a 32-bit version EVER. So any data you can give us > would be helpful, feel free to add your comments and observations to the but > mentioned above. > > Sincerely, > jesus
OK thanks for the BZ link... I'll look into it and see if I can't contribute to the info in the ticket.... > > _______________________________________________ > Spacewalk-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list _______________________________________________ Spacewalk-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
