I haven't had a chance to upgrade my qa instance yet because I've been bussy with other thing so I'm not sure. On Nov 9, 2012 4:05 PM, "Jonathan Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Are you seeing the same issue in 1.8? I was hoping a fresh install and > profile migration would put me in the clear. > > - Jonathan > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Paul Robert Marino > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Spacewalk-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
