[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 20051010: 6.4.2 pqact memory leak and suggestion
- Subject: Re: 20051010: 6.4.2 pqact memory leak and suggestion
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:56:40 -0600
Hi Daryl,
> To: address@hidden
> From: Daryl Herzmann <address@hidden>
> Subject: 6.4.2 pqact memory leak and suggestion
> Organization: Iowa State
> Keywords: 200510101443.j9AEhaG7021664 LDM-6.4.2 pqact memory leak
The above message contained the following:
> I am rolling with LDM 6.4.2 on RHEL AS 4.2 x86_64. I am not sure how much
> this dovetails with Michael Doss, but I am noticing a memory leak in
> pqact.
Indeed! That shouldn't happen. I've started my LDM 6.4.2 and will
particular attention to the memory usage of the pqact(1) process.
> For instance:
>
> ldm 7592 0.3 11.4 408860 235936 ? S 08:16 0:14 pqact -f
> ANY-NEXRAD etc/pqact.conf
> ldm 7593 0.1 4.0 406192 83860 ? S 08:16 0:07 pqact -f
> NEXRAD etc/pqact_NEXRAD.conf
>
> and their memory usage keeps on growing...
I'm afraid that the above doesn't show a memory leak because it's just a
snapshop of two pqact(1) processes rather than a time-series.
I expect the memory-usage of a pqact(1) process to grow initially.
It should, however, reach a plateau when it runs out of virgin
file-descriptors and starts reusing them.
> I am running a number of
> custom decoders, so perhaps the trouble is there?
Unlikely. Your ps(1) utility shouldn't lump the memory-usage by
decoders into its report on any pqact(1) processes.
> But I have never seen
> this before on other systems I run...
>
> And a suggestion...
>
> Would it be possible to change this error message:
>
> Oct 10 13:16:40 mesonet pqact[7592] NOTE: child 7699 exited with status 1
>
> and into something a bit more descriptive? like
>
> Oct 10 13:16:40 mesonet pqact[7592] NOTE: child 7699 exited with status 1
> cmd was (PIPE close -strip scripts/RR3parse.py)
>
> Even in USR2 mode, there is nothing that ties an INFO line to a NOTE
> line...
That's in my list. I'm not sure, however, if that would be a big-fix or
a new feature. If it's a bug-fix, then I can put it in 6.4.3. If,
however, it's a new feature, then it'll have to wait until 6.5.
What do you think?
> thanks,
> daryl
>
> --
> /**
> * Daryl Herzmann (address@hidden)
> * Program Assistant -- Iowa Environmental Mesonet
> * http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu
> */
Regards,
Steve Emmerson
> NOTE: All email exchanges with Unidata User Support are recorded in the
> Unidata inquiry tracking system and then made publicly available
> through the web. If you do not want to have your interactions made
> available in this way, you must let us know in each email you send to us.