Re: [Gluster-users] Glusterfs 3.4.4 - memory leak in fuse_getxattr

2014-06-30 Thread Justin Clift
On 30/06/2014, at 3:05 AM, Viktor Villafuerte wrote: > On the same note, I've just got .src RPM for 3.4.4 and the patch is not > there. From the email trail it seems that it's not officially backported > to 3.4.4. It is present in the latest GIT release though.. > > Just to make sure I'm doing the

Re: [Gluster-users] Glusterfs 3.4.4 - memory leak in fuse_getxattr

2014-06-30 Thread Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
On 06/30/2014 02:41 AM, Viktor Villafuerte wrote: Thanks Ravishankar, I've patched and built the package already for RHEL6 and now RHEL5. Also while I was doing this I've noticed that bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073217 has not been included in 3.4.4 either. I've manually pat

Re: [Gluster-users] Glusterfs 3.4.4 - memory leak in fuse_getxattr

2014-06-29 Thread Viktor Villafuerte
n apply a patch on 3.4.4? > >> > >>I am planning to deploy a prod on 3.4.4. > >> > >>Thanks > >>Peter > >> > >>From: gluster-users-boun...@gluster.org [gluster-users-boun...@gluster.org] > >>

Re: [Gluster-users] Glusterfs 3.4.4 - memory leak in fuse_getxattr

2014-06-29 Thread Ravishankar N
rtin Svec [martin.s...@zoner.cz] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 10:50 AM To: Justin Clift Cc: gluster-users@gluster.org Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Glusterfs 3.4.4 - memory leak in fuse_getxattr Dne 24.6.2014 18:53, Justin Clift napsal(a): On 24/06/2014, at 5:35 PM, Martin Svec wrote: Note that

Re: [Gluster-users] Glusterfs 3.4.4 - memory leak in fuse_getxattr

2014-06-29 Thread Viktor Villafuerte
ay, June 24, 2014 10:50 AM > To: Justin Clift > Cc: gluster-users@gluster.org > Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Glusterfs 3.4.4 - memory leak in fuse_getxattr > > Dne 24.6.2014 18:53, Justin Clift napsal(a): > > On 24/06/2014, at 5:35 PM, Martin Svec wrote: > > > > > N

Re: [Gluster-users] Glusterfs 3.4.4 - memory leak in fuse_getxattr

2014-06-25 Thread Justin Clift
On 25/06/2014, at 5:16 AM, Justin Clift wrote: > On 24/06/2014, at 5:53 PM, Justin Clift wrote: >> On 24/06/2014, at 5:35 PM, Martin Svec wrote: >> >>> Note that the patch is 11 months old. Why it isn't merged in 3.4 branch yet? >> >> Sounds like we just need to backport it to release-3.4 branch

Re: [Gluster-users] Glusterfs 3.4.4 - memory leak in fuse_getxattr

2014-06-24 Thread Justin Clift
On 24/06/2014, at 5:53 PM, Justin Clift wrote: > On 24/06/2014, at 5:35 PM, Martin Svec wrote: > >> Note that the patch is 11 months old. Why it isn't merged in 3.4 branch yet? > > Sounds like we just need to backport it to release-3.4 branch then. Backport to the release-3.4 branch is here, for

Re: [Gluster-users] Glusterfs 3.4.4 - memory leak in fuse_getxattr

2014-06-24 Thread Peter Auyeung
24, 2014 10:50 AM To: Justin Clift Cc: gluster-users@gluster.org Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Glusterfs 3.4.4 - memory leak in fuse_getxattr Dne 24.6.2014 18:53, Justin Clift napsal(a): > On 24/06/2014, at 5:35 PM, Martin Svec wrote: > > > Note that the patch is 11 months old. Why it

Re: [Gluster-users] Glusterfs 3.4.4 - memory leak in fuse_getxattr

2014-06-24 Thread Martin Svec
Dne 24.6.2014 18:53, Justin Clift napsal(a): On 24/06/2014, at 5:35 PM, Martin Svec wrote: > Note that the patch is 11 months old. Why it isn't merged in 3.4 branch yet? Sounds like we just need to backport it to release-3.4 branch then. Thank you, that would be fine :) It's surprising that

Re: [Gluster-users] Glusterfs 3.4.4 - memory leak in fuse_getxattr

2014-06-24 Thread Justin Clift
On 24/06/2014, at 5:35 PM, Martin Svec wrote: > Note that the patch is 11 months old. Why it isn't merged in 3.4 branch yet? Sounds like we just need to backport it to release-3.4 branch then. + Justin -- GlusterFS - http://www.gluster.org An open source, distributed file system scaling to se

[Gluster-users] Glusterfs 3.4.4 - memory leak in fuse_getxattr

2014-06-24 Thread Martin Svec
Hello, while evaluating Gluster, I quickly noticed abnormal memory usage of glusterfs 3.4.4 FUSE client. According to valgrind, there's a memory leak in fuse_getxattr: ==31375== 1,145,000 (1,143,168 direct, 1,832 indirect) bytes in 624 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 348 of 354 ==3