Re: [ovirt-users] VDSM memory consumption

Hi, I also see this on the latest 3.5 version, I'm thinking about setting up a cronjob to restart vdsm every night. I cannot believe that people say they don't have this issue. Can someone of the devs dive in maybe ? Thanks! Matt 2015-03-09 23:29 GMT+01:00 Dan Kenigsberg <danken(a)redhat.com&gt;: > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 10:40:51AM -0500, Darrell Budic wrote: >> > On Mar 9, 2015, at 4:51 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:58:53AM -0600, Darrell Budic wrote: >> >> I believe the supervdsm leak was fixed, but 3.5.1 versions of vdsmd still leaks slowly, ~300k/hr, yes. >> >> >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1158108 >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 6, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Chris Adams <cma(a)cmadams.net&gt; wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Once upon a time, Federico Alberto Sayd <fsayd(a)uncu.edu.ar&gt; said: >> >>>> I am experiencing troubles with VDSM memory consuption. >> >>>> >> >>>> I am running >> >>>> >> >>>> Engine: ovirt 3.5.1 >> >>>> >> >>>> Nodes: >> >>>> >> >>>> Centos 6.6 >> >>>> VDSM 4.16.10-8 >> >>>> Libvirt: libvirt-0.10.2-46 >> >>>> Kernel: 2.6.32 >> >>>> >> >>>> When the host boots, memory consuption is normal, but after 2 or 3 >> >>>> days running, VDSM memory consuption grows and it consumes more >> >>>> memory that all vm's running in the host. If I restart the vdsm >> >>>> service, memory consuption normalizes, but then it start growing >> >>>> again. >> >>>> >> >>>> I have seen some BZ about vdsm and supervdsm about memory leaks, but >> >>>> I don't know if VDSM 4.6.10.8 is still affected by a related bug. >> >>> >> >>> Can't help, but I see the same thing with CentOS 7 nodes and the same >> >>> version of vdsm. >> >>> -- >> >>> Chris Adams <cma(a)cmadams.net&gt; >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Users mailing list >> >>> Users(a)ovirt.org >> >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> > >> > I'm afraid that we are yet to find a solution for this issue, which is >> > completly different from the horrible leak of supervdsm < 4.16.7. >> > >> > Could you corroborate the claim of >> > Bug 1147148 - M2Crypto usage in vdsm leaks memory >> > ? Does the leak disappear once you start using plaintext transport? >> > >> > Regards, >> > Dan. >> >> I don’t think this is crypto related, but I could try that if you still need some confirmation (and point me at a quick doc on switching to plaintext?). >> >> This is from #ovirt around November 18th I think, Saggi thought he’d found something related: >> >> 9:58:43 AM saggi: YamakasY: Found the leak >> 9:58:48 AM saggi: YamakasY: Or at least the flow >> 9:58:57 AM saggi: YamakasY: The good news is that I can reproduce >> 9:59:20 AM YamakasY: saggi: that's kewl! >> 9:59:25 AM YamakasY: saggi: what happens ? >> 9:59:41 AM YamakasY: I know from Telsin (ping ping!) that he sees it going faster on gluster usage >> tdosek left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds). (10:00:02 AM) >> djasa left the room (quit: Quit: Leaving). (10:00:24 AM) >> mlipchuk left the room (quit: Quit: Leaving.). (10:00:29 AM) >> laravot left the room (quit: Quit: Leaving.). (10:01:19 AM) >> 10:01:54 AM saggi: YamakasY: it's in getCapabilities(). Here is the RSS graph. The flatlines are when I stopped calling it and called other verbs. http://i.imgur.com/CLm0Q75.png > > I do recall what is the issue Saggi and YamakasY were dicussing (CCing > the pair), or if it reached fruition as a patch. It is certainly > something other than Bug 1158108, as the latter speak about a leak in a > normal working state, with no getCapabilities calls. > >