[ovirt-users] VDSM memory consumption

[Matt .]

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 at redhat.com>:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 10:40:51AM -0500, Darrell Budic wrote:
>> > On Mar 9, 2015, at 4:51 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken at redhat.com> 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 at cmadams.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Once upon a time, Federico Alberto Sayd <fsayd at uncu.edu.ar> 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 at cmadams.net>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Users mailing list
>> >>> Users at 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.
>
>