thanks for your help, but I still struggling with the System OOMKiller
issue.
I was doing more digging. And still couldn't find the problem.
All settings are normal overcommit_memory=0, overcommit_ratio=50.
free -m before the process starts:
# free -m
total used free shared buff/cache
available
Mem: 489 25 399 1 63
440
Swap: 255 57 198
I start my process like this:
*java* -server -Xmx300m -Xms300m -XX:+HeapDumpOnOutOfMemoryError
-XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC -XX:CMSInitiatingOccupancyFraction=55 -jar
/opt/ccio-image.jar
So, I should still have about 99Mb of free memory, but:
# free -m
total used free shared buff/cache
available
Mem: 489 409 6 1 73
55
Swap: 255 54 201
And I didn't even make a single call to the process yet. It joined the
cluster, and loaded data from overflow files. And all my free memory is
gone. Even though I've set 300Mb max for Java.
As I mentioned before, I've set off-heap memory setting to false:
Cache cache = new CacheFactory()
.set("locators", LOCATORS.get())
.set("start-locator", LOCATOR_IP.get()+"["+LOCATOR_PORT.get()+"]")
.set("bind-address", LOCATOR_IP.get())
.create();
cache.createDiskStoreFactory()
.setMaxOplogSize(500)
.setDiskDirsAndSizes(new File[] { new File("/opt/ccio/geode/store") }, new
int[] { 18000 })
.setCompactionThreshold(95)
.create("-ccio-store");
RegionFactory<String, byte[]> regionFactory = cache.createRegionFactory();
Region<String, byte[]> region = regionFactory
.setDiskStoreName("-ccio-store")
.setDataPolicy(DataPolicy.PERSISTENT_PARTITION)
.setOffHeap(false)
.setMulticastEnabled(false)
.setCacheLoader(new AwsS3CacheLoader())
.create("ccio-images");
I don't understand how the memory is getting overcommitted.
Eugene
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Barry Oglesby <[email protected]> wrote:
> The OOM killer uses the overcommit_memory and overcommit_ratio parameters
> to determine if / when to kill a process.
>
> What are the settings for these parameters in your environment?
>
> The defaults are 0 and 50.
>
> cat /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory
> 0
>
> cat /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_ratio
> 50
>
> How much free memory is available before you start the JVM?
>
> How much free memory is available when your process is killed?
>
> You can monitor free memory using either free or vmstat before and during
> your test.
>
> Run free -m in a loop to monitor free memory like:
>
> free -ms2
> total used free shared buffers cached
> Mem: 290639 35021 255617 0 9215 21396
> -/+ buffers/cache: 4408 286230
> Swap: 20473 0 20473
>
> Run vmstat in a loop to monitor memory like:
>
> vmstat -SM 2
> procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system--
> -----cpu-----
> r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id
> wa st
> 0 0 0 255619 9215 21396 0 0 0 23 0 0 2 0 98
> 0 0
> 0 0 0 255619 9215 21396 0 0 0 0 121 198 0 0
> 100 0 0
> 0 0 0 255619 9215 21396 0 0 0 0 102 189 0 0
> 100 0 0
> 0 0 0 255619 9215 21396 0 0 0 0 110 195 0 0
> 100 0 0
> 0 0 0 255619 9215 21396 0 0 0 0 117 205 0 0
> 100 0 0
>
>
> Thanks,
> Barry Oglesby
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Dan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The java metaspace will also take up memory. Maybe try setting
>> -XX:MaxMetaspaceSize
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Eugene Strokin <[email protected]>
>> Date: 4/22/2016 4:34 PM (GMT-08:00)
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: System Out of Memory
>>
>> The machine is small, it has only 512mb RAM, plus 256mb swap.
>> But java is set max heap size to 400mb. I've tried less, no help. And the
>> most interesting part is that I don't see Java OOM Exceptions at all. I
>> even included a code with memory leak, and I saw the Java OOM Exceptions
>> before the java process got killed then.
>> I've browsed internet, and some people are actually noticed the same
>> problem with other frameworks, not Geode. So, I'm suspecting this could be
>> not Geode, but Geode was the first suspect because it has off-heap storage
>> feature. They say that there was a memory leak, but for some reason OS was
>> killing the process even before Java was getting OOM,
>> I'll connect with JProbe, and will be monitoring the system with the
>> console. Will let you know if I'll find something interesting.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eugene
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Dan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> What's your -Xmx for your JVM set to, and how much memory does your
>>> droplet have? Does it have any swap space? My guess is you need to
>>> reduce the heap size of your JVM and the OS is killing your process
>>> because there is not enough memory left.
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Darrel Schneider <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I don't know why your OS would be killing your process which seems
>>> like your
>>> > main problem.
>>> >
>>> > But I did want you to know that if you don't have any regions with
>>> > off-heap=true then you have no reason to have off-heap-memory-size to
>>> be set
>>> > to anything other than 0.
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Eugene Strokin <[email protected]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm running load tests on the Geode cluster I've built.
>>> >> The OS is killing my process occasionally, complaining that the
>>> process
>>> >> takes too much memory:
>>> >>
>>> >> # dmesg
>>> >> [ 2544.932226] Out of memory: Kill process 5382 (java) score 780 or
>>> >> sacrifice child
>>> >> [ 2544.933591] Killed process 5382 (java) total-vm:3102804kB,
>>> >> anon-rss:335780kB, file-rss:0kB
>>> >>
>>> >> Java doesn't have any problems, I don't see OOM exception.
>>> >> Looks like Geode is using off-heap memory. But I set offHeap to false
>>> for
>>> >> my region, and I do have only one region:
>>> >>
>>> >> RegionFactory<String, byte[]> regionFactory =
>>> cache.createRegionFactory();
>>> >> regionFactory
>>> >> .setDiskStoreName("-ccio-store")
>>> >> .setDataPolicy(DataPolicy.PERSISTENT_PARTITION)
>>> >> .setOffHeap(false)
>>> >> .setCacheLoader(new AwsS3CacheLoader());
>>> >>
>>> >> Also, I've played with off-heap-memory-size setting, setting it to
>>> small
>>> >> number like 20M to prevent Geode to take too much off-heap memory, but
>>> >> result is the same.
>>> >>
>>> >> Do you have any other ideas what could I do here? I'm stack at this
>>> point.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thank you,
>>> >> Eugene
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
