Thank you for your info, I will give it a try.
Martin
Marcus Kool <marcus.kool@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 17.06.2010 16:15:09:
> Martin,
>
> Valgrind is a memory leak detection tool.
> You need some developer skills to run it.
>
> If you have a test environment with low load you may want
> to give it a try.
> - download the squid sources
> - run configure with CFLAGS="-g -O2"
> - run squid with valgrind
> - wait
> - kill squid with a TERM signal and look and the valgrind log file
>
> Valgrind uses a lot of memory for its own administration and has
> a lot of CPU overhead, so reduce cache_mem to a small value like 32MB.
>
> Most likely you will see many memory leaks because
> Squid does not free everything when it exits. This is normal.
> You need to look at repeated memory leaks; the leaks that
> occur often and file a bug report.
>
> Please do not post the whole valgrind output to this list.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> Martin.Pichlmaier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I just wanted to report back the last tests:
> >
> > After the memory cache is filled to 100% the squid (3.1.4 or 3.1.3)
> > still needs more memory over time when under load, about 1-2 GB a day.
> > memory_pool off did not change anything, the process size still rises.
> > The high CPU usage seem to start when rising over a certain size limit
> > but I am not sure about that.
> > Example memory consuption of squid-3.1.4:
> > from 8.0 GB (4pm) to 8.4 GB (7pm) to 8.5 GB (4am next day) to 9,4 GB
> > (2pm).
> > At night there is low load on the squid, maybe 20-50 req/s.
> > 3.1.3 behaves the same, so it does not seem to be related to the
> > "ctx enter/exit level" topic discussed in the last mails.
> >
> > I am now reverting the proxies back to 3.0.STABLE25 but will keep one
> > proxy
> > on 3.1.4 for testing.
> > Probably something in my setup causes squid to consume too much
memory.
> >
> > Amos, do you have another idea what might causes this and where to
look,
> > for example which debug depth? I can do some tests and have the
> > possibility
> > to slowly put this proxy under load and take it out of productive
> > environment afterwards...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Martin
> >
> >
> >
> > Amos Jeffries <squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 15.06.2010 13:31:40:
> >
> > <snip>
> >>> I am now checking with mem pools off on one of the proxies and
report
> >>> later whether it changes anything.
> > <snip>
> >>> 2010/06/15 11:37:06| ctx: enter level 2059: '<lost>'
> >>> 2010/06/15 11:37:06| ctx: enter level 2060: '<lost>'
> >>> X:}0/06/15 11:37:06| WARNING: suspicious CR characters in HTTP
header
> > {
> >>> 2010/06/15 11:37:06| ctx: exit level 2060
> >>> 2010/06/15 11:37:06| ctx: enter level 2060: '<lost>'
> >>> X:}0/06/15 11:37:06| WARNING: suspicious CR characters in HTTP
header
> > {
> >>> 2010/06/15 11:37:06| ctx: exit level 2060
> >>> 2010/06/15 11:37:06| ctx: enter level 2060: '<lost>'
> >>> X:}0/06/15 11:37:06| WARNING: suspicious CR characters in HTTP
header
> > {
> >>> 2010/06/15 11:37:06| ctx: exit level 2060
> >>> 2010/06/15 11:37:06| ctx: enter level 2060: '<lost>'
> >>> X:}0/06/15 11:37:06| WARNING: suspicious CR characters in HTTP
header
> > {
> >>> 2010/06/15 11:37:06| ctx: exit level 2060
> >>> 2010/06/15 11:37:06| ctx: enter level 2060: '<lost>'
> >>> X:}0/06/15 11:37:06| WARNING: suspicious CR characters in HTTP
header
> > {
> >>> 2010/06/15 11:40:56| ctx: exit level 2060
> >>> 2010/06/15 11:40:56| ctx: enter level 2060: '<lost>'
> >>> 2010/06/15 11:40:56| ctx: enter level 2061: '<lost>'
> >>>
> >> Ouch. We've been wondering about these ctx loops. It is not something
to
> >
> >> be terribly worried about, but can cause some "weird stuff" (yes that
is
> >
> >> probably the best explanation).
> >>
> >> Thanks to your reminder, I've just had another look and found one
more
> >> in header processing. Hopefully that was it.
> >>
> >> Amos
> >> --
> >> Please be using
> >> Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE9 or 3.1.4
> >
> >
> >
