Re: [ovirt-users] ?3.4: VDSM Memory consumption

Hello Francesco, -- Daniel Helgenberger m box bewegtbild GmbH P: +49/30/2408781-22 F: +49/30/2408781-10 ACKERSTR. 19 D-10115 BERLIN www.m-box.de www.monkeymen.tv > On 29.09.2014, at 22:19, Francesco Romani <fromani(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Daniel Helgenberger" <daniel.helgenberger(a)m-box.de&gt; >> To: "Francesco Romani" <fromani(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Cc: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com&gt;, users(a)ovirt.org >> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:54:13 PM >> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] 3.4: VDSM Memory consumption >> >> Hello Francesco, >> >>> On 29.09.2014 13:55, Francesco Romani wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Daniel Helgenberger" <daniel.helgenberger(a)m-box.de&gt; >>>> To: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Cc: users(a)ovirt.org >>>> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 12:25:22 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] 3.4: VDSM Memory consumption >>>> >>>> Dan, >>>> >>>> I just reply to the list since I do not want to clutter BZ: >>>> >>>> While migrating VMs is easy (and the sampling is already running), can >>>> someone tell me the correct polling port to block with iptables? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> there is indeed a memory profiling patch under discussion: >>> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/32019/ >>> >>> but for your case we'll need a backport to 3.4.x and clearer install >>> instructions, >>> which I'll prepare as soon as possible. >> I updated the BZ (and are now blocking 54321/tcp on one of my hosts). >> and verified it is not reachable. As general info: This system I am >> using is my LAB / Test / eval setup for a final deployment for ovirt >> (then 3.5) in production; so it will go away some time in the future (a >> few weeks / months). If I am the only one experiencing this problem then >> you might be better of allocating resources elsewhere ;) > > Thanks for your understanding :) > > Unfortunately it is true that developer resources aren't so abundant, > but it is also true that memleaks should never be discarded easily and without > due investigation, considering the nature and the role of VDSM. > > So, I'm all in for further investigation regarding this issue. > >>> As for your question: if I understood correctly what you are asking >>> (still catching up the thread), if you are trying to rule out the stats >>> polling >>> made by Engine to this bad leak, one simple way to test is just to shutdown >>> Engine, >>> and let VDSMs run unguarded on hypervisors. You'll be able to command these >>> VDSMs using vdsClient or restarting Engine. >> As I said in my BZ comment this is not an option right now, but if >> understand the matter correctly IPTABLES reject should ultimately do the >> same? > > Definitely yes! Just do whatever it is more convenient for you. > 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!