Update: The system still seems to be managing the "idle in transaction" processes much better than before. While the number fluctuates (its in the 30s today), it doesn't appear to be a detriment to the application as it was once before.
- Jonathan On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Jonathan Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > Yea; after my nightly errata check, my "idle in transaction" processes > climbed up to 50 and has hung there all morning. The only real noticeable > change is that the app was actually functional this morning after the > errata load vs. hung with maxed out apache processes. I'll keep running > under this configuration for the remainder of the week. > > - Jonathan > > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Paul Robert Marino <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Well after letting it run for 24 hours Ive found it doesn't completely >> eliminate them but it has reduced them significantly. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Wojtak, Greg (Superfly) >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Just sayin', I haven't seen these in the two days since I upgraded to >> spacewalk 1.8… >> > >> > If they do appear, I wouldn't mind testing either. I've got a few >> hundred servers on our spacewalk instance, along with a proxy, to help >> stress it with. >> > >> > Greg Wojtak >> > Sr. Unix Systems Engineer >> > Office: (313) 373-4306 >> > Cell: (734) 718-8472 >> > >> > >> > From: Jonathan Scott <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> > Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" < >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> >> > Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 1:39 PM >> > To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" < >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> > Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, " >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" < >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> > Subject: Re: [Spacewalk-list] [Spacewalk-devel] I think I found the >> root cause of the PostgreSQL Idle in transaction connection build up. >> > >> > Paul, you stud! I'm one of the ones reporting this same issue, and I >> will happily volunteer my 60-instance Spacewalk 1.7 install for testing. >> I'll implement your fix and report back on my findings. >> > >> > - Jonathan >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Paul Robert Marino < >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > Well you are right there is nothing in the change log that idicates >> that this issue existed or how its fixed. >> > But as I said it seems to fix it there is probably a side effect fix >> that was not planed but seems to work. >> > The results are rediculously obvious initialy now honestly I think it >> needs a few days of testing to prove it, and I would like for others to >> confirm it but from my initial test it on one of my development instances >> it looks good. I would like other people to test it because I'm not using >> monitoring on that instance and I only have a few systems attached to it >> but the difference is so obvious there is deffinitly something there. >> > By the way I've seen the change log betwean 701to 702 but I haven't >> seen the change log betwean 702 and 703 and I looked its not on their site >> or in the source package as far as I could initialy tell. >> > >> > While I admit I can't point to a reason in the change log why, it at >> least initialy seems to work. I think if any thing it may be a compound >> correction of multiple bugs that may of fixed a larger harder to pinpoint >> issue. >> > >> > On Nov 6, 2012 12:01 AM, "Tom Lane" <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> > Paul Robert Marino <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> writes: >> >> Ive been doing some testing and I am fairly positive I found out why >> >> the number of connections in PostgreSQL increases and its not a >> >> spacewalk bug at all. >> >> It looks like its a JDBC bug [ and is fixed in 8.4-703 ] >> > >> > This is really interesting, but I looked through the upstream commit >> > logs, and I can't see any patches between 8.4-701 and 8.4-703 that look >> > like they'd cure a "connection leak" such as you're describing. There >> > are a couple of fixes for possible loss-of-protocol-sync issues, but it >> > doesn't seem like that would result in silent leakage; the symptoms >> > would be pretty obvious. >> > >> > Have you poked into the client-side state to see what that end thinks >> > it's doing with the idle connections? >> > >> > regards, tom lane >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Spacewalk-list mailing list >> > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > >
_______________________________________________ Spacewalk-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
