[Ocfs2-users] OCFS2 has a likely memory leak. Bug 864

[John Lange]

Just to be clear though, you need to follow the test outlined. Do _not_
delete the files.

You must create them and flush the caches and then examine the free
memory. Graph it over a significant amount of time and then see if its a
downward trend.

If you can, do a comparison to an ext3 partition as well.

If this list supported attachments I would show you the two graphs, in
one, the free memory slopes downward (ocfs2), in the other free memory
is completely level.

John

On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 13:21 -0700, Alexei_Roudnev wrote:
> Run for 1 hour (even more), created 600,000 files (and removed then), from 2
> hosts.
> 
> No memory leak problem, but # of slab-512 (not 256) growth - 77,000 used,
> 600,000 objects active in slab-32 and slab-512.
> 
> So there is object leak in the OCFSv2 / SLES9 Sp3, less aggressive than
> described one. Anyway, creating 100,000,000 files (and deleting them) will
> kill the system for sure (as I predicted before - OCFSv2 can be used, if you
> bhhave not intensive file creation or modification).
> 
> 
>  Active / Total Objects (% used)    : 1586075 / 1736513 (91.3%)
>  Active / Total Slabs (% used)      : 108815 / 108842 (100.0%)
>  Active / Total Caches (% used)     : 96 / 133 (72.2%)
>  Active / Total Size (% used)       : 398467.35K / 428911.02K (92.9%)
>  Minimum / Average / Maximum Object : 0.02K / 0.25K / 128.00K
> 
>   OBJS ACTIVE  USE OBJ SIZE  SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME
> 628096 628044  99%    0.03K   5608      112     22432K size-32
> 627352 627352 100%    0.50K  78419        8    313676K size-512
> 207600 151528  72%    0.09K   5190       40     20760K buffer_head
>  97320  83204  85%    0.12K   3244       30     12976K size-128
>  63450  14540  22%    0.25K   4230       15     16920K dentry_cache
>  31584  16754  53%    0.52K   4512        7     18048K radix_tree_node
>  19228  18049  93%    0.17K    874       22      3496K vm_area_struct
>  12384   9922  80%    0.02K     86      144       344K anon_vma
>   6210   5979  96%    0.25K    414       15      1656K filp
>   5730   2669  46%    0.25K    382       15      1528K size-256
>   3744   2782  74%    0.88K    936        4      3744K ext3_inode_cache
>   3390   3346  98%    0.62K    565        6      2260K inode_cache
>   3132   1855  59%    0.06K     54       58       216K size-64
>   2800    798  28%    0.02K     14      200        56K biovec-1
>   2605   2438  93%    0.75K    521        5      2084K proc_inode_cache
>   2378   1794  75%    0.06K     41       58       164K ocfs2_em_ent
>   1590    866  54%    0.12K     53       30       212K bio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Sunil Mushran" <Sunil.Mushran at oracle.com>
> To: "Alexei_Roudnev" <Alexei_Roudnev at exigengroup.com>
> Cc: "John Lange" <john.lange at open-it.ca>; "ocfs2-users"
> <ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-users] OCFS2 has a likely memory leak. Bug 864
> 
> 
> > You'll run into the size-256 slab explosion on sles9 sp3.
> > That issue was addressed in 1.2.4.  sp3 ships 1.2.3.
> >
> > Alexei_Roudnev wrote:
> > > OCFSv2 @ SLES9 Sp3 build 283 is relatively stable. I am running your
> test on
> > > 2 hosts now (create files from 2 hosts, and delete them with some delay
> from
> > > host1 by rm -rf; without any sleep's; let's see how it works).
> > >
> > > I'll post results here.
> > >
> > > (I have impression, that SLES10 OCFSv2 is not stable at all - many
> numerous
> > > complains let me think, that it is not tested well, when
> > > they integrated OCFS into SLES10).
> > >
> >
>