Awww crap. Let's revert the whole thing then. I always felt that 'fix' was more voodoo than science.
IMHO I don't think the original bug should be a blocker for 0.10. IIRC it isn't a regression, and there's a 'work around' by using proton events. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gordon Sim" <g...@redhat.com> > To: d...@qpid.apache.org > Cc: proton@qpid.apache.org > Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:09:07 AM > Subject: Re: proton 0.10 blocker > > On 07/20/2015 08:53 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote: > > I'm fine going ahead with Gordon's fix. I don't have a lot of time to dig > > into the refcounting issue personally right now, but I'd at least leave the > > bug open until we have made it through a bit more testing. I have an uneasy > > feeling it (or something closely related) may pop up again if we push > > harder on testing. > > You were right I'm afraid! I've seen further failures of a similar > nature even with that fix now committed. They seem less frequent > (previously I was seeing a core dump every run, now its more like 2 out > of 10 or so). > > My inclination is to revert the original fix for PROTON-905 for now, > until more detailed testing and investigation can be carried out. The > fix prevents a build up of memory on long running connections where > multiple sessions (and links) are opened then closed. As reported this > only happens with older versions of the broker. In any case it does also > have a workaround (albeit a very inconvenient one) of restarting the > connection every so often, at which point the memory is freed. > > By contrast I don't understand enough about these crashes to suggest any > workaround and the effects are more serious even for the latest broker. > -- -K
