Hi,
I am seeing memory leaks in gmond also. It is memory footprint is
growing with time
Vaibhav
Brad Nicholes wrote:
On 4/10/2008 at 5:13 PM, in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bernard Li"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi guys:
>>
>> Looks like we might have introduc
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 06:11:23PM -0700, Bernard Li wrote:
>
> I just found another issue with your initial patch
hope you don't mean r1230, which was committed to stable already after
careful testing.
> -- once the cookie
> is set, and you decide to change the authority tag in your gmetad.conf
Matt:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Bernard Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you guys please confirm this still solves the original issue you
> were encountering?
Did you have a chance to check whether your client software has issues
with the latest code (I checked in the proposed patch)?
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Jesse Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there is an existing /etc/gmond.conf, then create a new "patched"
> file as something like /etc/gmond.conf.upgrade_from_3.0.x. This
> leaves the existing file alone, reducing the risk of breaking
> something. Also,
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Bernard Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right now I am working on the upgrade path from 3.0.x to 3.1.x. Since
> there are diffs between 3.0.x gmond and 3.1.x gmond, I am proposing
> the following changes in the spec file during upgrade:
>
> %postun
> gmond -t
Hi all:
Right now I am working on the upgrade path from 3.0.x to 3.1.x. Since
there are diffs between 3.0.x gmond and 3.1.x gmond, I am proposing
the following changes in the spec file during upgrade:
%postun
gmond -t > /tmp/gmond.conf.old /* generate default conf from 3.0.x */
%post
gmond -t >
Hi Brad:
I decided to move the thread to ganglia-developers since it was
evolving into a development discussion.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I think we need something like that for gmeta. What I was thinking is
> to add another filter type.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Witham, Timothy D
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I believe the patch is complete now and will resolve bz#76 for
> 3.0.x.
Checked into 3.0.x branch r1232.
I would like to request that we start rolling 3.0.8 betas for an
imminent release -- unless of course th
Hi Jesse:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Jesse Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you please post a URL for the graph in question? It doesn't have
> to be a full URL, just all the ugly CGI variables.
>
> Also, in r1202, there's a one-line addition to try and handle the grid
> context.
>It looks like I missed revisions 1206 and 1215. I've updated the
>patch. Please review again.
Yes, I believe the patch is complete now and will resolve bz#76 for
3.0.x.
+1. Thanks Bernard!
-twitham
-
This SF.net email
>>> On 4/11/2008 at 1:02 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bernard Li"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi guys:
>
> Another backport request. This is already fixed in trunk, and I would
> like this to be backported to 3.0.x tree. Please refer to the
> attached patch.
>
> Patch includes changes
Hi Timothy:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Witham, Timothy D
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It breaks the /?filter=summary but that is easily fixed by including
> r1215:
>
> Index: server.c
> ===
> --- server.c(revision 1185)
Hi Brad:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, when patches are backported to a stable branch, it would be good to
> include who reviewed and voted on the backport patch just for tracking
> purposes.
Got it, will do for next backport.
Cheers,
Berna
It breaks the /?filter=summary but that is easily fixed by including
r1215:
Index: server.c
===
--- server.c(revision 1185)
+++ server.c(revision 1215)
@@ -121,13 +121,9 @@
source->hosts_up, source->hosts_down);
if
>>> On 4/11/2008 at 12:40 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bernard Li"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi guys:
>
> Occasionally I have been getting the following message in syslog:
>
> /usr/sbin/gmetad[734]: server_thread() -1209013328 unable to write root
> epilog
>
> This happens with both
Hi guys:
Another backport request. This is already fixed in trunk, and I would
like this to be backported to 3.0.x tree. Please refer to the
attached patch.
Patch includes changes from revisions 1122, 1138, 1142, 1152, 1154 and
1158 from trunk.
Cheers,
Bernard
Index: gmetad/process_xml.c
Hi Carlo:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> since the gridstack is also passed around in a cookie the check for the _GET
> hash is IMHO bogus and redundant here, since the existence of gridwalk should
> be sufficient.
That's fine -- but f
Hi guys:
Occasionally I have been getting the following message in syslog:
/usr/sbin/gmetad[734]: server_thread() -1209013328 unable to write root epilog
This happens with both 3.0.x and trunk. After perusing the archives,
I noticed that users have experienced it but nobody has been able to
fig
>>> On 4/11/2008 at 9:12 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brad
Nicholes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/10/2008 at 5:13 PM, in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bernard Li"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi guys:
>>
>> Looks like we might have introduced memory leak in gmetad recently. I
>>> On 4/10/2008 at 5:13 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bernard Li"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi guys:
>
> Looks like we might have introduced memory leak in gmetad recently. I
> don't have the exact numbers, but the memory usage is definitely
> growing. I left my gmetad running for 2 d
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 05:51:31PM -0700, Bernard Li wrote:
>
> Index: web/get_context.php
> ===
> --- web/get_context.php (revision 1139)
> +++ web/get_context.php (working copy)
> @@ -43,14 +43,19 @@
> escapeshellcmd($_GET["z"]
21 matches
Mail list logo
