On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Gordan Bobic <gordan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Is there any reason why the GlusterFS process would grow over time if no > performance translators are used? I'm seeing the GlusterFS process go from > about 2.5MB when it starts, up to hundreds of MB. At least initially, the > growth seems to be between 4 and 8KB/s. After a few days it seems to crash > out. Again this is the rootfs gluster process, so a bit hard to debug in > detail seen as it is the rootfs that goes away at this point. Is this a > memory leak, or is there a more reasonable explanation? It is possible that it could be because of the large dcache. We have a recent enhancement which uses a more memory efficient data structure for inode specific data. You can give it a try and see if it helps your memory usage (there are other active development happening, so watch out if it is a production system and wait for rc2).
