On 12/16/2013 10:24 PM, Nathan Hoad wrote: > While running under this configuration, I've confirmed that memory > usage does go up when active, and stays at that level when inactive, > allowing some time for timeouts and whatnot. I'm currently switching > between the two instances every fifteen minutes. > > Here is a link to the memory graph for the entire running time of the > second process, at 1 minute intervals: > http://getoffmalawn.com/static/mem-graph.png. The graph shows memory > use steadily increasing during activity, but remaining reasonably > stable during inactivity. I agree that this looks like a memory leak, but (in general) it could also be some kind of memory pooling or cache entry accumulation. > Where shall we go from here? I recommend the following next steps: 1. Set "memory_pools off". 2. Disable all caching with "cache deny all". Do you see as similar memory growth pattern after the above two steps? * If yes: Time for valgrind or ALL,9 debugging. I can help you make that choice if needed. You can actually do those things now, without doing steps 1 and 2 first, but valgrind and log analysis take time so if we can avoid it by eliminating false positives and/or simplifying the setup, we should do that first... * If no: Try re-enabling caching, but using smaller memory [and disk?] cache sizes so that a cache gets and stays _full_ way before you run out of RAM. This will eliminate cache index growth as a suspect. If your disk cache is full already or uses Rock store, then this applies to memory cache only. Do you see as similar memory growth pattern after re-enabling caching? Are your caches full? HTH, Alex.
