On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 09:40:16AM +0100, Martin Edwards wrote:
> It looks like we've fixed this. It seems msdfs is on by default. By chance
> I disabled it:
>
> host msdfs = no
>
> No more memory leak!
>
> At some point I will endeavour to recreate the old problem on a test box and
> find out
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 09:40:16AM +0100, Martin Edwards wrote:
> It looks like we've fixed this. It seems msdfs is on by default. By chance
> I disabled it:
>
> host msdfs = no
>
> No more memory leak!
>
> At some point I will endeavour to recreate the old problem on a test box and
> find out
It looks like we've fixed this. It seems msdfs is on by default. By chance
I disabled it:
host msdfs = no
No more memory leak!
At some point I will endeavour to recreate the old problem on a test box and
find out why msdfs causes the memory leak and report back to the list.
Thank you for all
We will endeavour to do this on a test system in the next few days.
Thanks once again for your assistance.
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:11:50AM +0100, Martin Edwards wrote:
> > Do you think notifies could be responsible for the memory lea
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:11:50AM +0100, Martin Edwards wrote:
> Do you think notifies could be responsible for the memory leak? Despite
> there being all of those entries they don't add up to anything like the
> usage of the process.
It might be possible that we have a leak somewhere around
the
Do you think notifies could be responsible for the memory leak? Despite
there being all of those entries they don't add up to anything like the
usage of the process.
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Volker Lendecke
wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:31:48AM +0100, Martin Edwards wrote:
> > Sor
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:31:48AM +0100, Martin Edwards wrote:
> Sorry it's taken so long to reply. The pool-usage output for one such
> process is here:
>
> http://samba.dreamhosters.com/pool-usage.txt
Thanks for that output! It seems we need to do something
with notifies.
Volker
pgphuQblNM
Samba version is 3.3.3.
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Martin Edwards <
martin.f.edwa...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Sorry it's taken so long to reply. The pool-usage output for one such
> process is here:
>
> http://samba.dreamhosters.com/pool-usage.txt
>
> The problem has been mitigated somewha
Sorry it's taken so long to reply. The pool-usage output for one such
process is here:
http://samba.dreamhosters.com/pool-usage.txt
The problem has been mitigated somewhat just by giving the box more RAM but
it's very frustrating.
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Volker Lendecke
wrote:
> On Fri
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:52:13PM +0100, Martin Edwards wrote:
> (Sorry, I meant to send this to the list first time around)
>
> Thanks very much for that.
>
> On a thread using 1.2GB pool-usage reports:
>
> full talloc report on 'null_context' (total 5898052 bytes in 39825 blocks)
>
> There a
(Sorry, I meant to send this to the list first time around)
Thanks very much for that.
On a thread using 1.2GB pool-usage reports:
full talloc report on 'null_context' (total 5898052 bytes in 39825 blocks)
There are thousands of lib/charcnv.c:601 entries but all using only 1 block
each.
On Fri
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 02:55:46PM +0100, Martin Edwards wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is a bug or a problem we are causing which is why I'm
> posting to the list first in the hope that someone else might have come
> across it.
>
> We have been using Samba quite successfully for a number of years.
Dear readers,
I'm not sure if this is a bug or a problem we are causing which is why I'm
posting to the list first in the hope that someone else might have come
across it.
We have been using Samba quite successfully for a number of years. However,
with this new setup we have a problem.
We're us
13 matches
Mail list logo
