Yea I'm seeing the same thing on my development instance. While it doesn't completely solove the issue it seems to make it manageble for people still running 1.7. Without setting a rediculous number of max connection in postgresql. I still haven't had a chance to compare with 1.8 but I. Sould be able to start testing that soon. On Nov 9, 2012 11:03 AM, "Jonathan Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Spacewalk-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
