<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Hello Francesco,<br><br><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">-- <br>Daniel Helgenberger <br>m box bewegtbild GmbH <br><br>P: <a href="tel:+49/30/2408781-22" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="6">+49/30/2408781-22</a><br>F: <a href="tel:+49/30/2408781-10" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="7">+49/30/2408781-10</a><br>ACKERSTR. 19 <br>D-10115 BERLIN <br><a href="http://www.m-box.de/" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors-result="8">www.m-box.de</a> <a href="http://www.monkeymen.tv/" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors-result="9">www.monkeymen.tv</a> <br></span></div><div><br>On 29.09.2014, at 22:19, Francesco Romani <<a href="mailto:fromani@redhat.com">fromani@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>----- Original Message -----</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>From: "Daniel Helgenberger" <<a href="mailto:daniel.helgenberger@m-box.de">daniel.helgenberger@m-box.de</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>To: "Francesco Romani" <<a href="mailto:fromani@redhat.com">fromani@redhat.com</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Cc: "Dan Kenigsberg" <<a href="mailto:danken@redhat.com">danken@redhat.com</a>>, <a href="mailto:users@ovirt.org">users@ovirt.org</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:54:13 PM</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] 3.4: VDSM Memory consumption</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Hello Francesco,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On 29.09.2014 13:55, Francesco Romani wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>----- Original Message -----</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>From: "Daniel Helgenberger" <<a href="mailto:daniel.helgenberger@m-box.de">daniel.helgenberger@m-box.de</a>></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>To: "Dan Kenigsberg" <<a href="mailto:danken@redhat.com">danken@redhat.com</a>></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Cc: <a href="mailto:users@ovirt.org">users@ovirt.org</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 12:25:22 PM</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] 3.4: VDSM Memory consumption</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Dan,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I just reply to the list since I do not want to clutter BZ:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>While migrating VMs is easy (and the sampling is already running), can</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>someone tell me the correct polling port to block with iptables?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Thanks,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Hi Daniel,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>there is indeed a memory profiling patch under discussion:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/32019/">http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/32019/</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>but for your case we'll need a backport to 3.4.x and clearer install</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>instructions,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>which I'll prepare as soon as possible.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I updated the BZ (and are now blocking 54321/tcp on one of my hosts).</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>and verified it is not reachable. As general info: This system I am</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>using is my LAB / Test / eval setup for a final deployment for ovirt</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>(then 3.5) in production; so it will go away some time in the future (a</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>few weeks / months). If I am the only one experiencing this problem then</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>you might be better of allocating resources elsewhere ;)</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>Thanks for your understanding :)</span><br><span></span><br><span>Unfortunately it is true that developer resources aren't so abundant,</span><br><span>but it is also true that memleaks should never be discarded easily and without</span><br><span>due investigation, considering the nature and the role of VDSM.</span><br><span></span><br><span>So, I'm all in for further investigation regarding this issue.</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>As for your question: if I understood correctly what you are asking</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>(still catching up the thread), if you are trying to rule out the stats</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>polling</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>made by Engine to this bad leak, one simple way to test is just to shutdown</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Engine,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>and let VDSMs run unguarded on hypervisors. You'll be able to command these</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>VDSMs using vdsClient or restarting Engine.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>As I said in my BZ comment this is not an option right now, but if</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>understand the matter correctly IPTABLES reject should ultimately do the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>same?</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>Definitely yes! Just do whatever it is more convenient for you.</span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote>As you might have already seen in the BZ comment the leak stopped after blocking the port. Though this is clearly no permanent option - please let me know if I can be of any more assistance! <div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>-- </span><br><span>Francesco Romani</span><br><span>RedHat Engineering Virtualization R & D</span><br><span>Phone: 8261328</span><br><span>IRC: fromani</span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>