Re: 20051010: 6.4.2 pqact memory leak and suggestion

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