[ovirt-users] ?3.4: VDSM Memory consumption

[Dan Kenigsberg]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 09:02:19PM +0000, Daniel Helgenberger wrote:
> 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 at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Daniel Helgenberger" <daniel.helgenberger at m-box.de>
> >> To: "Francesco Romani" <fromani at redhat.com>
> >> Cc: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken at redhat.com>, users at 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 at m-box.de>
> >>>> To: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken at redhat.com>
> >>>> Cc: users at 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! 

The immediate suspect in this situation is M2Crypto. Could you verify
that by re-opening the firewall and setting ssl=False in vdsm.conf?

You should disable ssl on Engine side and restart both Engine and Vdsm
(too bad I do not recall how that's done on Engine: Piotr, can you help?).