Winston, The job is hogging memory -- it needs to go. If it's the jenkins-maven3 plugin that is the culprit, then it needs to go too. ASAP.
Is it? Memory leaks on production, mission-important systems will be tolerated no more. I am angry now :) BTW: I am very greatful for your help and insight so far. On 02/23/2012 11:16 AM, Winston Prakash wrote: > Denis, > > Let us not move the job. The fix I put in hudson-test-harness > (reducing foot print of JUnit Tests) should save lot more than this > job. I request a restart during this week end and do some more heap > analysis early next week. > > - Winston > > On 2/23/12 7:26 AM, Denis Roy wrote: >> On 02/23/2012 09:59 AM, Mickael Istria wrote: >>> When it is done, I'd be glad to have feedback on the overall >>> performance benefit of moving just one job. It's just saving 100MB >>> on a 2GB JVM. If nothing changed, then I'll annoy to get job is back >>> on hudson.eclipse.org. >> >> The background for all this is bug 367238. It is called "improve >> Hudson stability and performance" and it is marked "critical". I've >> put a number of bugs as dependencies to that bug. As I've mentioned, >> closing only one of the blockers will not fix the issue, but when a >> job consumes 10x the amount of RAM of other jobs, it is clearly >> misbehaving. >> >> Let's resume this discussion on the appropriate bugs. Thanks. >> >> Denis >>
_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
