Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
Andrew Grumet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay I took another measurement. This time the footprint was 1358MB.
This page has near-simultaneous output of ns_info pools and ns_info
threads.
http://grumet.net/scratch/pools2
OK, here's the output from my script:
THR ID BYTESNAME, PARENT, PROC
241061842636-driver- -main- | p:ff323c80 a:0x0
27 62454988-sched:idle1- -sched- | p:ff33c6e4 a:1
26 62209081-sched:idle0- -sched- | p:ff33c6e4 a:0x0
30 59578568-sched:idle4- -sched- | p:ff33c6e4 a:4
29 59527285-sched:idle3- -sched- | p:ff33c6e4 a:3
1 51130900-main- {} | p:0x0 a:0x0
shared 26706412shared
28 21432088-sched:idle2- -sched- | p:ff33c6e4 a:2
3 10250711-sched- -main- | p:ff33ca64 a:0x0
10 -25609229-conn:ssv2::6 -main- | ns:connthread {}
23 -27794744-conn:ssv2::19 -main- | ns:connthread {}
9 -28575328-conn:ssv2::5 -main- | ns:connthread {}
5 -29617870-conn:ssv2::2 -main- | ns:connthread {}
13 -29919773-conn:ssv2::9 -main- | ns:connthread {}
19 -31431446-conn:ssv2::15 -main- | ns:connthread {113717 146.115.120.81
running GET /mem 0.33716 0}
18 -31506322-conn:ssv2::14 -main- | ns:connthread {}
20 -31818524-conn:ssv2::16 -main- | ns:connthread {}
8 -32097598-conn:ssv2::4 -main- | ns:connthread {}
21 -32244499-conn:ssv2::17 -main- | ns:connthread {}
16 -32439429-conn:ssv2::12 -main- | ns:connthread {}
17 -32464142-conn:ssv2::13 -main- | ns:connthread {}
6 -32500413-conn:ssv2::1 -main- | ns:connthread {}
7 -34144661-conn:ssv2::3 -main- | ns:connthread {}
15 -34227120-conn:ssv2::11 -main- | ns:connthread {}
14 -34457112-conn:ssv2::10 -main- | ns:connthread {}
12 -34498309-conn:ssv2::8 -main- | ns:connthread {}
4 -35326644-conn:ssv2::0 -main- | ns:connthread {}
22 -36337468-conn:ssv2::18 -main- | ns:connthread {}
11 -36517544-conn:ssv2::7 -main- | ns:connthread {}
The sum on the BYTES column gives 771,604,494 which bothers me that it's
so far off from 1.3 GB - nearly half.
Talking to Jim yesterday, he explained why it's possible for a thread to
have more puts than gets: one thread allocates memory (gets) and another
thread frees it (puts).
The sum of all the conn threads above is -643,528,175 -- if we assume
that memory is being allocated in the driver thread and freed in the
conn threads after the conn's done, then the driver thread's memory is
really closer to 418,314,461 ...
Still, this doesn't help answer the question of why is Andrew's nsd at
1.3 GB and growing -- especially when the same exact app. under
AOLserver 3 remains stable while on AOLserver 4 it seems to
continuously grow ...
Perhaps it's time to take another run through with Purify/valgrind and
look for lost memory. Also, consider how you're using NSV's and
nscache, etc.
-- Dossy
--
Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/
He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on. (p. 70)
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of
your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
Not pretty, but should help you make some sense out of these numbers!
table border=1
%
set talloc 0
set trequest 0
set tused 0
set tlocks 0
set twaits 0
set tfree 0
set tops 0
foreach p [lsort [ns_info pools]] {
ns_adp_puts trtrtd colspan=9 align=center[lindex $p
0]/td/trtr
foreach e {blocksize nfree nget nput bytesreq bytesused overhead
locks lockwaits} {
ns_adp_puts th$e/th
}
foreach b [lrange $p 1 end] {
set bs [lindex $b 0]
set nf [lindex $b 1]
set ng [lindex $b 2]
set np [lindex $b 3]
set nr [lindex $b 4]
incr tops [expr $ng + $np]
incr tlocks [lindex $b 5]
incr twaits [lindex $b 6]
incr tfree [expr $bs * $nf]
set nu [expr $ng - $np]
set na [expr $nu * $bs]
incr talloc $na
incr trequest $nr
incr tused $nu
if {$nr != 0} {
set ov [expr $na - $nr]
set op [format %4.2f%% [expr $ov.0 * 100 / $nr.0]]
} else {
set ov NA
set op NA
}
ns_adp_puts /trtr
foreach e [linsert [lreplace $b 4 4] 4 $nr $na $op] {
ns_adp_puts td$e/td
}
ns_adp_puts /tr
}
}
set ov [expr $talloc - $trequest]
set op [format %4.2f [expr $ov.0 * 100 / $trequest.0]]
if {$tlocks 0} {
set wr [format %4.2f [expr $twaits.0 / $tlocks.0]]
} else {
set wr NA
}
set av [format %4.2f [expr 100.0 - ($tlocks.0 * 100) / $tops.0]]
%
/table
table
trtdTotal bytes requested:/tdtd%=$trequest%/td/tr
trtdTotal bytes free:/tdtd%=$tfree%/td/tr
trtdTotal bytes allocated:/tdtd%=$talloc%/td/tr
trtdTotal bytes wasted:/tdtd%=$ov%/td/tr
trtdTotal byte overhead:/tdtd%=$op%%/td/tr
trtdTotal mutex locks:/tdtd%=$tlocks%/td/tr
trtdTotal mutex lock waits:/tdtd%=$twaits%/td/tr
trtdLock wait ratio:/tdtd%=$wr%%/td/tr
trtdTotal get/puts:/tdtd%=$tops%/td/tr
trtdLock avoidance:/tdtd%=$av%%/td/tr
/table
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of
your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
http://grumet.net/scratch/pretty-pools Thanks, Nathan! I think somewhere in the gig range we start to run into the Tcl max integer, which might cause the arithmetic to fail. Anyway, does this readout speak to you? Also, I'm adding tallies at the bottom of http://grumet.net/scratch/pools where I divide out by 1024 and 1024*1024 to keep the numbers from getting too big. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://grumet.net/scratch/pretty-pools Thanks, Nathan! I think somewhere in the gig range we start to run into the Tcl max integer, which might cause the arithmetic to fail. Anyway, does this readout speak to you? Also, I'm adding tallies at the bottom of http://grumet.net/scratch/pools where I divide out by 1024 and 1024*1024 to keep the numbers from getting too big. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. Yeah, there are a bunch of issues that need to be addressed in that stats display code... From what I saw, it looks about right. Generally you should see numbers that look like this: Total bytes requested:424989217 Total bytes free: 55156136 Total bytes allocated:738315272 Total bytes wasted: 313326055 Total byte overhead: 73.73% Total mutex locks:4792223 Total mutex lock waits: 0 Lock wait ratio: 0.00% Total get/puts: 827877527 Lock avoidance: 99.42% The important numbers to look at are the lock avoidance and total byte overhead. The big win with the zippy memory allocator is that it reduces lock contention to just about zero. Unfortunately this comes at the cost of higher allocations, which you can see by looking at the difference between bytes requested vs. bytes allocated. Anyhow, not really sure what you are trying to figure out, but hopefully this information helps! ;-) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
Sorry about the late response... On Oct 13, 2004, at 9:27 AM, Andrew Grumet wrote: Janine and Bruno, are you guys running nsopenssl? Yes, I am. As far as I know it's the latest. I think the trick here is trying to figure out where the memory is going. Jeff D. threw me some introspection code that reports nsv usage and other stuff, but I didn't see any smoking guns. Andy P. suggested purify. Maybe I'll take a look at that. Any luck? janine -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
Just to add my two cents, I am running AOLServer 4.0.8 on a RHEL 3 clone and it has been up for a month (in two days it will be one month, has been up since Sept 15th), it's true that it only gets a tiny little amount of hits a day but still .. the process is not taking more than 150MB of RAM ... Cheers /B On Oct 13, 2004, at 06:50, Janine A Sisk wrote: On Oct 12, 2004, at 2:22 PM, Andrew Grumet wrote: We've been stable at 644MB for the past two and half hours. With AOL4 we'd be continuing to grow beyond 1GB. Hmm I haven't paid attention to this before, but now I'm looking at my two AOL 4.0.8 sites and both of them are pretty large and growing too. One is at 1.2 GB and the other at 86MB. The former has been running for a while and the other was restarted recently. Over the last couple of hours, the larger site added about 40MB and then gave back about 10MB, while the smaller one just added 10MB, not noticeably giving any back. FWIW, my hunch is that this is both application and web server dependent. Andrew has proved that version 4 is implicated, but my site is (I believe) much busier than Sloanspace and yet it's not growing fast enough to run out of memory. And SS is running on a box with more RAM. So something in Sloanspace is triggering the memory leak more often than in my site, or so it appears to me. janine -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- Bruno Mattarollo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Currently in: Sydney, Australia [ http://pokies.typepad.com/virtual_possum/ ] -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
Thanks guys. Bruno, are you running OpenACS, and if so what version? Janine and Bruno, are you guys running nsopenssl? I think the trick here is trying to figure out where the memory is going. Jeff D. threw me some introspection code that reports nsv usage and other stuff, but I didn't see any smoking guns. Andy P. suggested purify. Maybe I'll take a look at that. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
On Tuesday 12 October 2004 20:22, Andrew Grumet wrote:
We've been stable at 644MB for the past two and half hours. With AOL4 we'd
be continuing to grow beyond 1GB.
Andrew,
i am not sure, if this helps, but we had a similar problem with a growing
aolserver 4.*, but it might have been a homegrown problem:
- we are using the c module xotcl, which was loaded for
aolserver 3.* via ns_section ns/server/${server}/modules,
where it should be loaded in 4.* via package require.
- due to an oversight in the configuration, we used for a short
time for 4.* the aolserver 3.*-style module. since there
are many internal changes between 3.* and 4.* the
memory cleanup functions of the 3.* module were
not fired in the new version, and we had a leak.
getting rid of the modules entry fixed the problem, the
size is now stable for weeks.
i doubt, that xotcl is the problem in your case, but it might
be worthwhile to check the modules you are using
best regards
-gustaf
--
Univ.Prof. Dr.Gustaf Neumann
Abteilung für Wirtschaftsinformatik und Neue Medien
Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, Augasse 2-6, 1090 Wien
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of
your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
We've been stable at 644MB for the past two and half hours. With AOL4 we'd be continuing to grow beyond 1GB. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
On 2004.10.06, Andrew Grumet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We don't seem to be out of the woods yet on this. We dumped core today, with this message in the log unable to realloc 2479192 bytes Coredump is 2.4GB, but I'm not sure if we got the whole coredump because the disk filled up :( Our last restart was about 3 hours ago. The nsd process is now size 1090M and seems to be growing. On Solaris, the per-process memory limit is 4 GB. Due to heap fragmentation and so on, the practical limit is ~3.2 GB. As your nsd process grows to the 3.0+ GB range, the odds of not being able to allocate (or reallocate) memory causing a fatal error like the one you saw, increases. Has your AOLserver always run this large? If not, look at what code changes have been made recently and try and identify where you're not cleaning up resources which will continue to consume memory ... There's no easy answer here without being familiar with the code you're running and what changes have been made recently. -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on. (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
Thanks for the suggestions. I wasn't watching the memory footprint carefully up until now. I've been watching top plenty, and I think I would have noticed GB+ memory footprints, but in any case it will be pretty easy to restart back in aolserver3 and give it a day. As for new code, I can do date-based cvs diffs but I think I'm going to go after the empirical stuff first (how many keys in our nsv_arrays? etc). If you know of any introspective tcl calls that might help here, I'm all ears. -Andrew -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
We don't seem to be out of the woods yet on this. We dumped core today, with this message in the log unable to realloc 2479192 bytes Coredump is 2.4GB, but I'm not sure if we got the whole coredump because the disk filled up :( Our last restart was about 3 hours ago. The nsd process is now size 1090M and seems to be growing. Any ideas? -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:59:01PM -0400, Andrew Grumet wrote: unable to realloc 2479192 bytes Coredump is 2.4GB, but I'm not sure if we got the whole coredump because the disk filled up :( Our last restart was about 3 hours ago. The nsd process is now size 1090M and seems to be growing. You need to find out where the memory leak is. Is that on Solaris or Linux? Purify on Solaris helped me track down some of my own leaks. Valgrind on Linux should do the same, but so far I've never tried that with AOLserver. I am suspicious of nsopenssl. It is doing stuff with Tcl_Obj's, but I don't see ANY calls to Tcl_IncrRefCount() or Tcl_DecrRefCount() at all. I recently had a huge leak problem in my own custom C code for EXACTLY that reason... -- Andrew Piskorski [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.piskorski.com/ -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 03:54:23PM -0400, Andrew Piskorski wrote: I am suspicious of nsopenssl. It is doing stuff with Tcl_Obj's, but I don't see ANY calls to Tcl_IncrRefCount() or Tcl_DecrRefCount() at all. I recently had a huge leak problem in my own custom C code for EXACTLY that reason... Well, that concerned me, because I am soon to start making heavy use of nsopenssl 3.0, but I think it was a false alarm. Again I haven't done any testing, but I looked at the code: I only really see two uses nsopenssl makes of Tcl_Obj, saving the result of calls to Tcl_GetObjResult() and Tcl_ListObjGetElements(). ALL the code I looked at both in AOLserver and Tcl that uses those calls seems to be written in the same style, no use of Tcl_IncrRefCount() or Tcl_DecrRefCount() anywhere there either. So, I don't think that's the problem. -- Andrew Piskorski [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.piskorski.com/ -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
Just FYI for anybody, this page gives some good hints on when you need to do ref management: http://wiki.tcl.tk/1192 HTH, --brett --- Andrew Piskorski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 03:54:23PM -0400, Andrew Piskorski wrote: I am suspicious of nsopenssl. It is doing stuff with Tcl_Obj's, but I don't see ANY calls to Tcl_IncrRefCount() or Tcl_DecrRefCount() at all. I recently had a huge leak problem in my own custom C code for EXACTLY that reason... Well, that concerned me, because I am soon to start making heavy use of nsopenssl 3.0, but I think it was a false alarm. Again I haven't done any testing, but I looked at the code: I only really see two uses nsopenssl makes of Tcl_Obj, saving the result of calls to Tcl_GetObjResult() and Tcl_ListObjGetElements(). ALL the code I looked at both in AOLserver and Tcl that uses those calls seems to be written in the same style, no use of Tcl_IncrRefCount() or Tcl_DecrRefCount() anywhere there either. So, I don't think that's the problem. -- Andrew Piskorski [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.piskorski.com/ -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
Hi Samer, We saw similar behavior with aolserver 3.3 a few times. Try increasing the number of database handles on pool1 and pool2. We increased these from 5, the openacs default, to 24 and 12, respectively. -Andrew -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
Well, ulimit -c returns 0 when run as both myself and the aolserver user. Let me see about putting ulimit -c unlimited in our startup script. I've been trying to reproduce this on our dev server, so far with no luck. If all else fails we'll roll aol4 to production and try to get a core file. -Andrew -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
On 2004.09.15, Samer Abukhait [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am running OpenACS 5.1-dotLRN 2.0.3/Oracle 10g/R.H. 3/AolServer 4.0.8 (2 servers, DB Web) - No nsopenssl, oracle dirver is 2.7 It appears that there have been several changes in CVS HEAD for nsoracle since 2.7 was released. There's also this currently open bug for nsoracle on SourceForge: http://aolserver.com/sf/bug/913754 [ 913754 ] nsoracle-2.7 and Oracle9i leaks file handle I also recall hearing that there were some issues with Oracle 9i on Linux and the OCI client having issues. I'm not sure if they addressed these in Oracle 10g or not. I'd first recommend testing a build of nsoracle from CVS HEAD and see if your problems go away. If not, we'll have to investigate further. -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on. (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
Our testing shows that nsoracle head, which is version 2.8 alpha 1, may not be ready for prime time. We found a few differences in the way that LOBs are handled that broke our code. /pgw Dossy Shiobara [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: AOLserver Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/15/2004 11:49 AM Please respond to AOLserver Discussion To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: (bcc: Greg Wolff/BNA Inc) Subject:Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8 On 2004.09.15, Samer Abukhait [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am running OpenACS 5.1-dotLRN 2.0.3/Oracle 10g/R.H. 3/AolServer 4.0.8 (2 servers, DB Web) - No nsopenssl, oracle dirver is 2.7 It appears that there have been several changes in CVS HEAD for nsoracle since 2.7 was released. There's also this currently open bug for nsoracle on SourceForge: http://aolserver.com/sf/bug/913754 [ 913754 ] nsoracle-2.7 and Oracle9i leaks file handle I also recall hearing that there were some issues with Oracle 9i on Linux and the OCI client having issues. I'm not sure if they addressed these in Oracle 10g or not. I'd first recommend testing a build of nsoracle from CVS HEAD and see if your problems go away. If not, we'll have to investigate further. -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on. (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
Yeah, nsoracle HEAD should not be used just yet. In particular the -bind set option doesn't work correctly. - Jeremy On Sep 15, 2004, at 12:58 PM, Greg Wolff wrote: Our testing shows that nsoracle head, which is version 2.8 alpha 1, may not be ready for prime time. We found a few differences in the way that LOBs are handled that broke our code. /pgw Dossy Shiobara [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: AOLserver Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/15/2004 11:49 AM Please respond to AOLserver Discussion To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: (bcc: Greg Wolff/BNA Inc) Subject:Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8 On 2004.09.15, Samer Abukhait [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am running OpenACS 5.1-dotLRN 2.0.3/Oracle 10g/R.H. 3/AolServer 4.0.8 (2 servers, DB Web) - No nsopenssl, oracle dirver is 2.7 It appears that there have been several changes in CVS HEAD for nsoracle since 2.7 was released. There's also this currently open bug for nsoracle on SourceForge: http://aolserver.com/sf/bug/913754 [ 913754 ] nsoracle-2.7 and Oracle9i leaks file handle I also recall hearing that there were some issues with Oracle 9i on Linux and the OCI client having issues. I'm not sure if they addressed these in Oracle 10g or not. I'd first recommend testing a build of nsoracle from CVS HEAD and see if your problems go away. If not, we'll have to investigate further. -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on. (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
RHEL 3, the nsd process died after about an hour of operation, no core files, no errors in all logs, i might give it another try tomorrow and watch everything. -Original Message- From: AOLserver Discussion on behalf of Dossy Shiobara Sent: Sun 9/12/2004 1:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: 4.0.8 On 2004.09.12, Samer Abukhait [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've installed 4.0.8 on a Production server that was running 4.0.7, kept the same configuration for everything. Surprisingly, servers dies (the nsd process is killed) after some certain load (without any error message). Couldn't have the time to debug further, switched back to 4.0.7 What OS/platform? When the nsd died, did it leave a core file behind? -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on. (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] 4.0.8
On 2004.09.12, Samer Abukhait [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RHEL 3, the nsd process died after about an hour of operation, no core files, no errors in all logs, i might give it another try tomorrow and watch everything. Are you running nsopenssl? What database drivers are you loading, if any? Could you send me off-list a copy of the config.tcl that you're using to start the server? Are you running OpenACS? -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on. (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
