zouyu,
zouyu napsal(a):
jfriesse,
yes, i use top to check the memory usage by corosync.
After i stop cpgbench and wait for some time and then restart cpgbench,
the corosync takes more memory than before, from 70% to 75% and then it
is killed by the system.
The corosync doesn't hold the same portion of the memory.
Ok, I was testing it right now and after some time corosync is holding
amount of memory (as expected).
I've changed cpgbench:
diff --git a/test/cpgbench.c b/test/cpgbench.c
index 23fc2b0..ec13302 100644
--- a/test/cpgbench.c
+++ b/test/cpgbench.c
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ int main (void) {
exit (1);
}
- for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) { /* number of repetitions - up to 50k */
+ for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) { /* number of repetitions - up to 50k */
cpg_benchmark (handle, size);
signal (SIGALRM, sigalrm_handler);
size *= 5;
So one run of it will not take all memory. Then exec testcpg and
cpgbench (complete run). After 2-3 cpbench runs (and of course let
testcpg process ALL messages), memory usage stop increasing and holds
still or decrease.
Honza
Note, i restart cpgbench and let it run shorter time than before, so
that we can check that the memory goes up.
On 08/07/2014 03:01 PM, Jan Friesse wrote:
zouyu,
Hi jfriesse,
I changed the subject to distinguish the original 'memory leak' problem.
for this kind of case, after i stop the cpgbench program and wait for
the testcpg to deliver and display all the messages to console, and wait
for about 1 hour, the corosync still holds the memory it occupies.
In my test, when corosync holds about 70% memory in the system, i stop
the cpgbench, and wait testcpg to display all remaining messages to
console, but the corosync doesn't shrink the memory it occupies, it
still holds 70% memory.
This is classic problem. How are you measuring it (I believe by top or
something like that, right?)?
So problem is, that free call in glibc doesn't always mean real free
of memory. glibc (or generally libc) still hold some memory.
So give a try to following scenario:
- exec cpgbench and testcpg as in your scenario
- stop cpgbench and wait for testcpg to process all messages (don't
turn testcpg off)
- exec cpgbench again
What you should see (and if not, there is really probably bug) is
corosync holding still same portion of memory.
Regards,
Honza
is this kind of behavior suitable or corosync should shrink the queue it
uses and free some memory to the system?
On 08/06/2014 09:38 PM, Jan Friesse wrote:
zouyu,
Hi jfriesse,
I can reproduce this kind of memory leak. I meet with this problem
some
days ago. Below are the reproduce steps:
1. install two nodes, n1 and n2.
2. on n1, start corosync and run 'testcpg cpg_bm'.
3. on n2, start corosync and run 'cpgbench'.
4. wait about 2 mins, and corosync on n1 will be killed which contains
about more than 75% memory.
Actually, 1-node cluster can also reproduce this problem, such that
'testcpg cpg_bm' and 'cpgbench' run on the same node, and corosync
will
be killed about 2 mins.
yep. But this is a totally different problem. What will happen in this
case scenario is:
- cpgbench emits messages as fast as it can
- testcpg is trying to receive them and write to console. And console
writing is slow, so corosync queues dispatch messages -> problem
Actually, if you will run testcpg and redirect output to /dev/null, it
will not happen.
Sadly there is really not too much to do with this concrete problem. We
cannot simply throw messages. I can imagine to have have some kind of
global cpg queuing limit, but there can be still malicious app which
decide to not process received events -> effective DOS.
So only thing we can (in theory) do, is to kill (disconnect)
application
which dispatch buffer is too big. But there is classic question.
What is
too big? What if some application need more?
Regards,
Honza
I have tried to use valgrind to catch the corosync, but it doesn't
work
and valgrind doesn't output the valuable things.
On 2014年08月06日 18:51, "Tomcsányi, Domonkos" wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I think I might have isolated the problem!
Starting from this thread:
http://forum.proxmox.com/threads/14263-Proxmox-3-0-Cluster-corosync-running-system-out-of-memory
I became suspicous and started to look at my syslog (IP address
intentionally changed):
Aug 6 12:46:41 db-01 corosync[22339]: [MAIN ] Completed service
synchronization, ready to provide service.
Aug 6 12:46:45 db-01 corosync[22339]: [TOTEM ] A new membership
(1.2.3.4:591376) was formed. Members
Aug 6 12:46:45 db-01 corosync[22339]: [QUORUM] Members[1]: 171707020
Aug 6 12:46:45 db-01 corosync[22339]: [MAIN ] Completed service
synchronization, ready to provide service.
Aug 6 12:46:49 db-01 corosync[22339]: [TOTEM ] A new membership
(1.2.3.4:591380) was formed. Members
Aug 6 12:46:49 db-01 corosync[22339]: [QUORUM] Members[1]: 171707020
Aug 6 12:46:49 db-01 corosync[22339]: [MAIN ] Completed service
synchronization, ready to provide service.
Aug 6 12:46:53 db-01 corosync[22339]: [TOTEM ] A new membership
(1.2.3.4:591384) was formed. Members
Aug 6 12:46:53 db-01 corosync[22339]: [QUORUM] Members[1]: 171707020
Aug 6 12:46:53 db-01 corosync[22339]: [MAIN ] Completed service
synchronization, ready to provide service.
Aug 6 12:46:56 db-01 corosync[22339]: [TOTEM ] A new membership
(1.2.3.4:591388) was formed. Members
Aug 6 12:46:56 db-01 corosync[22339]: [QUORUM] Members[1]: 171707020
Aug 6 12:46:56 db-01 corosync[22339]: [MAIN ] Completed service
synchronization, ready to provide service.
Looking at my other setup I don't see any messages like this. So, the
constant re-forming of the cluster is causing corosync to eat up all
the memory. Now I will start investigating on the network level to
see, what exactly happens there, why is there a constant changing in
the cluster, but still as the thread mentioned above says I think it
shouldn't cause such leakage of memory.
regards,
Domonkos
2014.07.31. 11:37 keltezéssel, Jan Friesse írta:
Domonkos,
2014.07.30. 18:10 keltezéssel, "Tomcsányi, Domonkos" írta:
2014.07.30. 15:51 keltezéssel, Jan Friesse wrote:
ok. I was trying reproduce your bug, sadly I was not very
successful.
Can you please try to reconfigure your postgres nodes to similar
configuration like on your apache nodes? This will help me to
identify if problem is happening with postgres resource only, or
with
all resources and it's problem in corosync/libqb.
Thanks,
Honza
Well, I did my best: I put the nodes into standby, so no
resources run
on them - no change at all, corosync still eats memory heavily.
I think it leaves us not much doubt about what is causing it.
So here is a way to reproduce it: install Ubuntu 14.04 LTS,
install
0.17 libqb either from a PPA, or by compiling it.
I will create now a clean virtual machine without any resources
and
see if the same happens.
Domonkos
Couldn't reproduce the issue yet in my clean virtual machines,
so I'm
gonna leave corosync running inside of valgrind on the machines
I had
problems for a night and see what happens.
Perfect. Hopefully you will be able to find out reproducer.
Regards,
Honza
Domonkos
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
