Hello Ben,
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 10:59 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
Hello Ben,
i'm a collegue of Daniele and I'd like to add some more information on
this issue, which we're still facing with 3.2.35-2~bpo60+1 .
[...]
Sandro Tosi wrote:
We reached you also because you're the current maintainer of upstream
3.2 branch and because we didn't want Wheezy to release with this bug.
We're testing a custom-built 3.7.10 kernel and the slab memory leak
seems to be gone (but we're facing with system freezes).
If you
Hello Jonathan,
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
If you can run a reverse bisect to find which commit or
configuration change fixed it, then I'd be happy to review the patch
that that finds and propose it if appropriate for upstream inclusion.
I
Sandro Tosi wrote:
I don't know how affordable that is: we're only able to replicate it
on production env (not exactly the best place to run tests) and after
at least 7/10 days of live traffic
In that case, a good first step would be to try to replicate it in a
more artificial setting, I
On Sat, 2013-04-20 at 23:32 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
Hello Ben,
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 10:59 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
Hello Ben,
i'm a collegue of Daniele and I'd like to add some more information on
this
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 10:59 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
Hello Ben,
i'm a collegue of Daniele and I'd like to add some more information on
this issue, which we're still facing with 3.2.35-2~bpo60+1 .
[...]
Please let us know if you need more information, if we can run some
diagnostics or try
Hello Ben,
i'm a collegue of Daniele and I'd like to add some more information on
this issue, which we're still facing with 3.2.35-2~bpo60+1 .
First of all, we saw there's a new version for bpo, do you want us to
update and see if it fixes? We don't want to keep changing the
platform (if not
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 18:22 +0100, Daniele Melosi wrote:
On 05/03/2013 03:40, Ben Hutchings wrote:
# wc -l /proc/mounts
329219 /proc/mounts
[...]
Er, wow, that's a lot. Does this *also* increase over time, or are
those mostly mounted at boot?
I agree, it's a lot.
The number of
On 09/03/2013 18:46, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 18:22 +0100, Daniele Melosi wrote:
On 05/03/2013 03:40, Ben Hutchings wrote:
# wc -l /proc/mounts
329219 /proc/mounts
[...]
Er, wow, that's a lot. Does this *also* increase over time, or are
those mostly mounted at boot?
I
On 05/03/2013 03:40, Ben Hutchings wrote:
# wc -l /proc/mounts
329219 /proc/mounts
[...]
Er, wow, that's a lot. Does this *also* increase over time, or are
those mostly mounted at boot?
I agree, it's a lot.
The number of entries in /proc/mounts file increase over time, at the
boot is low
Hi,
after kernel upgrade i've the following situation:
after 2 days of uptime:
08:41:41 up 2 days, 14:56, 0 users, load average: 13.07, 13.83, 13.65
size-192(DMA) 0 0192 201 : tunables 120 60
8 : slabdata 0 0 0
size-192 35599 83060192
On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 10:00 +0100, Daniele Melosi wrote:
Hi,
after kernel upgrade i've the following situation:
after 2 days of uptime:
08:41:41 up 2 days, 14:56, 0 users, load average: 13.07, 13.83, 13.65
size-192(DMA) 0 0192 201 : tunables 120 60
8 :
Control: tag -1 moreinfo
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 09:11 +0100, Daniele Melosi wrote:
Package: linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.3-amd64
Version: 3.2.23-1~bpo60+2
This is quite a few months out of date and there have been many bug
fixes since then. Please upgrade to linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.4-amd64
version
Package: linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.3-amd64
Version: 3.2.23-1~bpo60+2
In a linux web server (a LAMP architecture) after upgrade the kernel
version to the backport one, the system start swapping after a week of
utilization.
In /proc/slapinfo the main difference is in size-192:
after reboot:
14 matches
Mail list logo
