Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:58:54 -0400 | From | "Fred Tyler" <> | Subject | Re: Slow, persistent memory leak in 2.6.20 |
| |
On 8/26/07, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de> wrote: > > On Aug 26 2007 12:16, Fred Tyler wrote: > >> Please rule out filesystem caches by issuing > >> sync; > >> echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; > > > > > >So, I guess it worked? (I don't know what was supposed to happen, but > >memory usage dropped significantly when I did this.) > > So I guess you are not seeing any memory leak at all, but just the regular > caching?
Also, how can you explain the differences between the graphs of long-term memory usage? This first graph is from a server running 2.6.16 that never has memory problems:
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff117/fredty8/memory-a4.png
And here's a graph of a server running 2.6.12 that has to be rebooted every month or two because it runs out of memory:
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff117/fredty8/memory-a2.png
Now, admittedly, the 2.6.20 server has not been running long enough to know whether or not it's going to start starving applications of memory, but the graph here looks a whole lot more like 2.6.12 than 2.6.16, wouldn't you agree:
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff117/fredty8/memory-b1.png
Those 2.6.12 servers caused me a ton of stress because I let the problem go too long before I did anything. In the event that 2.6.20 is doing the same thing, I'm trying to fix it before things get out of control. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |