)
> --21588-- tt/tc: 23,734 tt lookups requiring 24,620 probes
> --21588-- tt/tc: 23,734 fast-cache updates, 6 flushes
> --21588-- transtab: new5,719 (136,749 -> 2,554,493; ratio 186:10) [0
> scs]
> --21588-- transtab: dumped 0 (0 -> ??)
> --21588-- tra
0 cmpAll
Jesse Becker wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2008 7:39 PM, Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> - Original Message
>>> From: Jesse Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: Ganglia Developers
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:25:54 PM
&
- Original Message
> From: Jesse Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Ganglia Developers
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:01:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ganglia-developers] Memory leak in gmond
>
> On Feb 19, 2008
On Feb 19, 2008 7:39 PM, Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Original Message
> > From: Jesse Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Ganglia Developers
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:25:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Ganglia-developers] Me
- Original Message
> From: Jesse Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Ganglia Developers
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:25:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ganglia-developers] Memory leak in gmond
>
> I'm not sure if this is right--I've only take a really
I'm not sure if this is right--I've only take a really quick check in
libmetrics/linux/metrics.c, and my C-fu is rusty.
It looks like strndup() is called in linux/metrics.c:hash_lookup
(about line 131) to dupliate an interface name, which is included in
the stats structure as stats->name. The net
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 08:17:27AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>
> All of the other memory leak fixes in 3.1.0 were specific to that code
> base. Although there might be something similar going on in 3.0.x.
> The other memory leak fixes dealt with the XDR functions that create
> and free the XDR
On 2/19/08, Jesse Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I modified my gmond.conf to report much more aggressively than usual
> so that the test time would be shorter. However, with *this
> configuration*, it works out to about 770 bytes per minute.
So did we want to hunt this other memory leak dow
On Feb 15, 2008 5:42 PM, Bernard Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure, please update us after the weekend, we'll likely release 3.0.7 then.
Running valgrind on the ganglia-3.0.6.200802141157.tar.gz tarball you
posted for testing:
==2590== 5,554 bytes in 1,282 blocks are definitely lost in loss re
>>> On 2/18/2008 at 9:41 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Carlo
Marcelo Arenas Belon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:21AM +0530, Kumar Vaibhav wrote:
>>
>> Did You tried the latest patched Version that Bernard send on last
>> friday. A lot of memory leak fixes have b
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:41:08PM -0600, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:21AM +0530, Kumar Vaibhav wrote:
> >
> > Did You tried the latest patched Version that Bernard send on last
> > friday. A lot of memory leak fixes have been done.
>
> Vaibhav, the only me
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:21AM +0530, Kumar Vaibhav wrote:
>
> Did You tried the latest patched Version that Bernard send on last
> friday. A lot of memory leak fixes have been done.
Vaibhav, the only memory leak fixed in the last beta was the one your
reported.
the development version (whi
Hi MAartin,
Did You tried the latest patched Version that Bernard send on last
friday. A lot of memory leak fixes have been done.
Vaibhav
Martin Hicks wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 04:17:07PM +0530, Kumar Vaibhav wrote:
>> I am using ganglia-3.0.5 on a woodcrest processor cluster. and I see
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 04:17:07PM +0530, Kumar Vaibhav wrote:
> I am using ganglia-3.0.5 on a woodcrest processor cluster. and I see
> that after running for weeks the memory consumption of the gmond process
> is something about 400 MB. I tried to debug the problem by isolating a
> single node
EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net; Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>; Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 5:07:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ganglia-devel
Hi Bernard,
I think the problem is solved. I don't see any rise in memory of gmond
for the last three days. Thanks for the fix. I will be waiting for 3.0.7
with this patch.
Once again thanks a lot.
Vaibhav
Bernard Li wrote:
> Hi Vaibhav:
>
> On 2/15/08, Kumar Vaibhav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Vaibhav:
On 2/15/08, Kumar Vaibhav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am testing the new release on my systems. Initial results are
> encouraging. I can tell the final words after weekend since I am keeping
> it for the test over the weekend.
Sure, please update us after the weekend, we'll likely
Hi,
I am testing the new release on my systems. Initial results are
encouraging. I can tell the final words after weekend since I am keeping
it for the test over the weekend.
Vaibhav
Bernard Li wrote:
> Hi Vaibhav:
>
> On 2/14/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks a l
orge.net; Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>; Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:01:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ganglia-developers] Memory leak in gmond
>
> Hi all:
>
> On 2/14/08, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
>
> >
>>> On 2/14/2008 at 3:31 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bernard Li"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Brad:
>
> On 2/14/08, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Basically it is just the standard configuration with gmond reporting
> bytes_in, bytes_out, pkts_in, pkts_out metrics. As
Hi Vaibhav:
On 2/14/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks a lot for the solution. Should I wait for a day or two for a
> release with patches or procedd to aplly the patches and rebuild gmond.
I just posted a beta for 3.0.7 with the patches. Please see the email
I just sen
Hi Brad:
On 2/14/08, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically it is just the standard configuration with gmond reporting
> bytes_in, bytes_out, pkts_in, pkts_out metrics. As part of these metric
> gathering functions, interface names needed to be added to a hash table.
> Each tim
>>> On 2/14/2008 at 3:01 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bernard Li"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> On 2/14/08, Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> thanks. My tests are still running. The new binaries do not grow anymore.
> Or at least a lot slower than the original
Hi all:
On 2/14/08, Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> thanks. My tests are still running. The new binaries do not grow anymore.
> Or at least a lot slower than the original 3.0.4
Since I can't reproduce this, can someone please explain to me what
configuration triggers this? I'll
February 14, 2008 8:54:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ganglia-developers] Memory leak in gmond
>
>
>
>
I
>
reverted
>
the
>
patch
>
that
>
I
>
had
>
originally
>
in
>
trunk
>
and
>
have
>
committed
>
Martin's
>
patch
>
t
I reverted the patch that I had originally in trunk and have committed
Martin's patch to both trunk and the monitor-core-3.0 branch. There has been
some testing done already, but it would probably be good to test a bit more.
Brad
>>> On 2/14/2008 at 11:50 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
b i AT knobisoft DOT de
>> www: http://www.knobisoft.de
>>
>> - Original Message
>>> From: Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: Kumar Vaibhav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Hi guys:
On 2/14/08, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It doesn't really matter to me which patch we use. The most important
> thing is consistency. If you feel like your patch is more complete, I would
> suggest that you drop it into trunk first and then backport it into the 3.0
--
>> > Martin Knoblauch
>> > email: k n o b i AT knobisoft DOT de
>> > www: http://www.knobisoft.de
>> >
>> > - Original Message
>> >> From: Martin Knoblauch
>> >> To: Kum
- Original Message
> >> From: Martin Knoblauch
> >> To: Kumar Vaibhav ; Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon
> >
> >> Cc: ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:36:37 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [Ganglia-d
Kumar Vaibhav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 4:44:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ganglia-developers] Memory leak in g
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc: ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:36:37 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Ganglia-developers] Memory leak in gmond
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> after looking at one of my employerss customers install
> Cc: ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:36:37 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Ganglia-developers] Memory leak in gmond
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> after looking at one of my employerss customers installations, it
> definitely
>
uch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Kumar Vaibhav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>
> Cc: ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:36:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ganglia-developers] Memory leak in gmond
:59:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ganglia-developers] Memory leak in gmond
>
> Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 04:17:07PM +0530, Kumar Vaibhav wrote:
> >> I am using ganglia-3.0.5 on a woodcrest processor cluster. and I see
> >> that after run
Hi Vaibhav:
On 2/8/08, Kumar Vaibhav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have tried it on Scientific linux 5.0 (a clone of RHEL 5.0). I see
> similar problem in Scientific linux 4.1 ( clone of RHEL 4 update 1).
I'm running gmond on CentOS 4.x and didn't have any issues.
> I had a subscription to gan
Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 04:17:07PM +0530, Kumar Vaibhav wrote:
>> I am using ganglia-3.0.5 on a woodcrest processor cluster. and I see
>> that after running for weeks the memory consumption of the gmond process
>> is something about 400 MB.
>
> did you check w
Bernard Li wrote:
> Hi Vaibhav:
>
> On 1/22/08, Kumar Vaibhav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I am using ganglia-3.0.5 on a woodcrest processor cluster. and I see
>> that after running for weeks the memory consumption of the gmond process
>> is something about 400 MB. I tried to debug the problem
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 04:17:07PM +0530, Kumar Vaibhav wrote:
> I am using ganglia-3.0.5 on a woodcrest processor cluster. and I see
> that after running for weeks the memory consumption of the gmond process
> is something about 400 MB.
did you check what was the size 1 hour after all gmond pro
Hi Vaibhav:
On 1/22/08, Kumar Vaibhav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am using ganglia-3.0.5 on a woodcrest processor cluster. and I see
> that after running for weeks the memory consumption of the gmond process
> is something about 400 MB. I tried to debug the problem by isolating a
> single node
I am using ganglia-3.0.5 on a woodcrest processor cluster. and I see
that after running for weeks the memory consumption of the gmond process
is something about 400 MB. I tried to debug the problem by isolating a
single node. But the problem continues with slower rate (rss memory
growth). I tri
41 matches
Mail list logo
