Hi, the truth is that we performed a few tests also with 3.7 series e.g create/delete/append files/directories. the bottom line is that we observed that each time RSS was increasing while operations were ongoing (which is kindof normal I guess) but when files/dir etc were deleted RSS did not dropped (even after drop_caches). But if the tests were repeated there was no additional RSS allocation. I can understood that this could come from caching but RSS reached even near ~800MB while as far as I understood initial pool sizes are much less. Please see the graphs that Olia attached. from the dumps after the dir deletion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1162159 I see that cur-stdalloc is zero for the pools (which as far as I understood represent the extra heap allocation) also other hot-counts pool-name=glusterfs:dict_t hot-count=3850 pool-name=glusterfs:data_t hot-count=3869 but (as far as I understood) hot counts comes from the initial heap not extra mallocs. I am not sure it these denote memory leak, maybe we are missing somenting in the glusterfs design. thank you very much br, vangelis On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Joe Julian <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Speaking as a user, not a dev, there have been a lot of memory leak fixes in > 3.7. I have no idea how many of those were backported to 3.6. It might be > worth testing 3.7.11 to compare. > > > On 05/26/2016 08:02 AM, Kremmyda, Olympia (Nokia - GR/Athens) wrote: > > Hi, > > We use Gluster 3.6.9 in one replicated volume (named “log”), with two > bricks. > Our tests include Nested Directory Creation operations (Creation from 1000 > up to 250000 Directory Trees) with 396 depth and no deletion is performed. > > We have observed the following memory usage statistics shown in the images: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1162032 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1162033 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1162034 > (statedumps are in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1162035 ) > > and we would like your opinion if this memory usage is normal for glusterfs. > Also after our tests, we delete these directories and the memory is not > released. > Can you describe us the expected memory behaviour in these cases? > > > Thank you, > Olia > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
