Hi all, I am looking into this issue, but could not make much from the statedumps. I will try to reproduce this issue. If i know what kind of operations (reads, writes, metadata r/ws, etc) are being done, and if there are any other configuration changes w.r.t GlusterFS, it'll be of great help. Regards, Rajesh Amaravathi, Software Engineer, GlusterFS RedHat Inc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Xavier Normand" <xavier.normand at gmail.com> To: "Philip Poten" <philip.poten at gmail.com> Cc: gluster-users at gluster.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 6:32:41 PM Subject: Re: Memory leak with glusterfs NFS on 3.2.6 Hi Philip, I do have about the same problem that you describe. There is my setup: Gluster: Two bricks running gluster 3.2.6 Clients: 4 clients running native gluster fuse client. 2 clients running nfs client My nfs client are not doing that much traffic but i was able to view after a couple days that the brick used to mount the nfs is having memory issue. i can provide more info as needed to help correct the problem. Thank's Xavier Le 2012-06-12 ? 08:18, Philip Poten a ?crit : 2012/6/12 Dan Bretherton < d.a.bretherton at reading.ac.uk >: <blockquote> I wonder if this memory leak is the cause of the NFS performance degradation <blockquote> I reported in April. </blockquote> That's probable, since the performance does go down for us too when the glusterfs process reaches a large percentage of RAM. My initial guess was that it's the file system cache that's being eradicated, thus iowait increases. But a closer look at our munin graphs implies, that it's also the user space that eats more and more CPU proportionally with RAM: http://imgur.com/a/8YfhQ There are two restarts of the whole gluster process family visible on those graphs: one a week ago at the very beginning (white in the memory graph, as munin couldn't fork all it needed), and one yesterday. The drop between 8 and 9 was due to a problemv unrelated to gluster. Pranith: I just made one dump, tomorrow I'll make one more and mail them both to you so that you can compare them. While I just restarted yesterday, the leak should be visible, as the process grows a few hundred MB every day. thanks for the fast reply, Philip _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users at gluster.org http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users </blockquote> _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users at gluster.org http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20120621/8c205e1e/attachment-0001.htm> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Capture d??cran 2012-06-12 ? 08.59.17.png Type: image/png Size: 36146 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20120621/8c205e1e/attachment-0001.png>
