Krzysztof Strasburger wrote: > I upgraded today from 2.0.8 to 3.0.3. > The first sad impression was that unify no longer works, but it is not that > important. Not a surprise. Switched to dht. Tried my old "du" test: > du /home > (/home is a glusterfs filesystem, of course ;) and saw again the bad old > unlimited increase of glusterfs clients memory usage. I hoped that the > problem went to quick-read, but it didn't. This is a known problem. See a previous email on the devel list about it at: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.gluster.devel/1469 A bug is filed is at: http://bugs.gluster.com/cgi-bin/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=545 For more info on the drop_caches mentioned in that gluster-devel thread, see: http://www.linuxinsight.com/proc_sys_vm_drop_caches.html Do let us know if dropping caches as shown in that thread helps. Thanks -Shehjar > So switched back to 2.0.10rc1, to restore unify. > And then did a simple test, to be sure that no translators are to be blamed. > I created the following, trivial setup: > > file loopback.vol: > volume loopback > type storage/posix > option directory /root/loopback > end-volume > > And then mounted /root/loopback on /root/loop-test: > > mount -t glusterfs loopback.vol /root/loop-test > > Do you see? No translators, even no server and networking. Just a loopback > to a directory on the local machine. > > I copied then the /usr directory to /root/loop-test (c.a. 160000 files). > And then ran "du /root/loop-test". > Memory usage of respective glusterfs process went up from 16 MB to 50 MB. > I could reproduce it perfectly by umounting /root/loop-test, mounting it > again and re-running "du". > More files touched mean more memory used by glusterfs. > This is not a memory leak. Repeating this "du" does not cause memory > usage go even a single byte up. Glusterfs client keeps somewhere an > information about _every file touched_, and keeps it _forever_. As the situation > did not improve since the times of glusterfs 1.3, I assume this behavior > to be a part of its design. IMHO a wrong one. This is not a feature, > this is a bug. It costs memory and probably performace too, if it is a kind > of cache (with millions of entries, potentially). > I filed a bug report almost one year ago - no change. Dear other users of > glusterfs - are you at least able to reproduce this memory consumption > problem? If it occurs on my site only, then the reason is somewhere in my > system setup, otherwise - let us do something about it, finally. > It is not in translators, it is in the core of glusterfs. > With regards > Krzysztof Strasburger > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
