This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.
Daryl, >Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:10:16 -0500 (CDT) >From: Daryl Herzmann <address@hidden> >Organization: Iowa State University >To: Steve Emmerson <address@hidden> >Subject: Re: 20051010: 6.4.2 pqact memory leak and suggestion The above message contained the following: > Sorry, here is a better example: > > $ date ; ps aux | grep pqact | grep -v grep > Mon Oct 10 11:04:49 CDT 2005 > ldm 14813 0.2 12.1 408684 249852 ? S 09:38 0:12 pqact -f > ANY-NEXRAD etc/pqact.conf > ldm 14814 0.2 4.1 406192 84540 ? S 09:38 0:11 pqact -f > NEXRAD etc/pqact_NEXRAD.conf > > $ date ; ps aux | grep pqact | grep -v grep > Mon Oct 10 11:05:10 CDT 2005 > ldm 14813 0.2 12.2 408684 252260 ? S 09:38 0:12 pqact -f > ANY-NEXRAD etc/pqact.conf > ldm 14814 0.2 4.1 406192 85364 ? S 09:38 0:11 pqact -f > NEXRAD etc/pqact_NEXRAD.conf > > You can see it is growing in a hurry. I will see how large it goes. The > system has 2 GB of memory and 4 GB of swap, so we should be okay for a > while... I just started using this system (Dell PE2850) this weekend. OK. Please keep me apprised. > > 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. > > Yup, on a LDM 6.4.0 machine, I get: > > $ ps auxw | grep pqact > ldm 22514 2.4 0.8 10376 8552 ? R Aug01 2440:04 pqact > > >> Oct 10 13:16:40 mesonet pqact[7592] NOTE: child 7699 exited with status 1 > >> cmd was (PIPE close -strip scripts/RR3parse.py) > > > > 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 for asking. It is a feature, so I can wait for 6.5. It is a much > needed feature, IMHO... Interesting. I'd convinced myself that it was a bug-fix -- especially if the command is just tagged onto the end of the current message. > I will try using 6.4.2 on a x86 32 bit machine and see what happens... > > thanks, > daryl > > -- > /** > * Daryl Herzmann (address@hidden) > * Program Assistant -- Iowa Environmental Mesonet > * http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu > */ Regards, Steve Emmerson