[Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
Lazaro Rubén García Martinez
lgarciam at vnz.uci.cu
Mon Oct 3 13:09:15 UTC 2011
Thank you very much for the answer.
Regards.
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Toshihiro Kitagawa [mailto:kitagawa at sraoss.co.jp]
Enviado el: lunes, 03 de octubre de 2011 03:23
Para: Lazaro Rubén García Martinez
CC: Glyn Astill; pgpool-general at pgfoundry.org
Asunto: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
Hi Lazaro,
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:40:59 -0430
Lazaro Rubén García Martinez <lgarciam at vnz.uci.cu> wrote:
> Thanks for the answer, One question, the patch proposed for some memory leaks can be applied in Pgpool-II 3.1.
The patch is not applicable to pgpool-II 3.1 without editing.
I've attached the same patch for pgpool-II 3.1.
It is unnecessary except for raw mode to apply these patches.
Regards.
--
Toshihiro Kitagawa
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
>
> Regards.
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Toshihiro Kitagawa [mailto:kitagawa at sraoss.co.jp] Enviado el:
> viernes, 30 de septiembre de 2011 12:18
> Para: Lazaro Rubén García Martinez
> CC: Glyn Astill; pgpool-general at pgfoundry.org
> Asunto: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
>
> Hi Lazaro,
>
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:44:41 -0430
> Lazaro Rubén García Martinez <lgarciam at vnz.uci.cu> wrote:
>
> > Hi all, Is there an estimated date for release Pgpool-II version 3.0.5 and 3.1.1?.
>
> pgpool-II 3.0.5 is going to be released by the end of October.
> The release time of pgpool-II 3.1.1 is undecided now.
>
> Regards.
>
> --
> Toshihiro Kitagawa
> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: pgpool-general-bounces at pgfoundry.org
> > [mailto:pgpool-general-bounces at pgfoundry.org] En nombre de Toshihiro
> > Kitagawa Enviado el: miércoles, 28 de septiembre de 2011 10:38
> > Para: Glyn Astill
> > CC: pgpool-general at pgfoundry.org
> > Asunto: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
> >
> > Hi Glyn,
> >
> > Thank you for your help.
> > This problem will be fixed in next minor version up(3.0.5/3.1.1).
> >
> > --
> > Toshihiro Kitagawa
> > SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:20:51 +0100 (BST) Glyn Astill
> > <glynastill at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Toshihiro,
> > >
> > > I can confirm that patch works and we no longer see the memory leak.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Glyn
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Toshihiro Kitagawa <kitagawa at sraoss.co.jp>
> > > > To: Glyn Astill <glynastill at yahoo.co.uk>; takizo
> > > > <paulooi at takizo.com>
> > > > Cc: "pgpool-general at pgfoundry.org"
> > > > <pgpool-general at pgfoundry.org>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011, 10:57
> > > > Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
> > > >
> > > > Hi Glyn, takizo,
> > > >
> > > > I created a patch to fix a massive memory leak of raw mode.
> > > > The patch which was posted before by Yoshiyuki seems correct.
> > > > However, I think it's better to call
> > > > pool_query_context_destroy() than free_parser().
> > > >
> > > > Would you try an attached patch?
> > > >
> > > > The patch is for V3.0_STABLE branch, but it's applicable to
> > > > pgpool-II 3.0.x too.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Toshihiro Kitagawa
> > > > SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:14:41 +0900 Toshihiro Kitagawa
> > > > <kitagawa at sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Glyn, takizo,
> > > >>
> > > >> Sorry for delay.
> > > >>
> > > >> I fixed some memory leaks in pgpool-II 3.1 and V3_0_STABLE.
> > > >> But I guess memory leaks are remaining as you say.
> > > >>
> > > >> Surely, free_parser() which was commented out might be problem.
> > > >> However, I think simply uncommenting leads unexpected new problem.
> > > >> So we have to fix those carefully.
> > > >>
> > > >> I will investigate and fix memory problems which was posted to
> > > >> this ML from now on.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Toshihiro Kitagawa
> > > >> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:22:50 +0800 takizo <paulooi at takizo.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Glyn,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Surely, I will try 2.3.3 :) > Thanks a lot > > -- > Paul
> > > >> Ooi > > > > On Sep 8, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Glyn Astill wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Hi takizo,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > We are currently using Pgpool-II 2.3.3 and it has been
> > > >> really
> > > > stable for us. Unless you're after a specific feature in
> > > > Pgpool-II 3.x you could perhaps try it?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > So far I've had no luck with the patch posted by
> > > >> Yoshiyuki,
> > > > even with that patch there is still a massive memory leak in
> > > > 3.0.4. It would appear that pool_proto_modules.c has lots
> > > > commented out calls to free_parser(), many more than the single
> > > > case that Yoshiyuki uncommented with his patch, so either there
> > > > is a bit of a mess there that needs sorting out by someone who knows the overall logic, or the issue is elsewhere.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Glyn
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > From: takizo <paulooi at takizo.com> > > To: Glyn Astill
> > > >> <glynastill at yahoo.co.uk> > > Cc:
> > > >> "pgpool-general at pgfoundry.org"
> > > > <pgpool-general at pgfoundry.org>
> > > >> > > Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 1:48 > > Subject: Re:
> > > >> [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II > > > > Gyln, > > >
> > > >> > Thanks. I happened to read through the thread after posted
> > > >> the
> > > > mail. It seems like I have to stick with Pgpool I until the developer is free.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > --
> > > >> > > takizo
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Glyn Astill wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> Hi takizo,
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Yes this bug has been seen by numerous people on the
> > > >> list,
> > > > Yoshiyuki Asaba has posted a patch, however there has been no
> > > > response from the main Pgpool II developers.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> I did ask a few times, and also asked if we'd be better
> > > > testing 3.1, but alas still no response. I can only assume the
> > > > devs are busy or otherwise indisposed.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> See the thread below for the patch.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org/msg0314
> > > > 1.html
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Glyn
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> From: takizo <paulooi at takizo.com> > >> To:
> > > >> pgpool-general at pgfoundry.org > >> Sent: Wednesday, 7 September
> > > >> 2011, 15:02 > >> Subject: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool
> > > >> II > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Today I have upgraded Pgpool
> > > >> I to Pgpool II. And I had to
> > > > roll back to Pgpool I due to memory hunger issue.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> My server is configured with > >> PostgreSQL 8.2, > >>
> > > >> running on FreeBSD 8.2 > >> Intel Xeon box with 4 CPUs with
> > > >> Quad Core, total of 16 cores > >> Memory with 24GB > >> > >>
> > > >> * While running on Pgpool I > >> I do no have memory hunger
> > > >> issue. On postgresql.conf, I have
> > > > max_connections=200 and shared_buffers=2GB.
> > > >> > >> Most of the time, I have 8GB memory in used and 10GB Free
> > > >> and
> > > > some in cached. Everything run just fine and perfectly good.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> * I tried upgraded to Pgpool II > >> Same config on
> > > >> postgresql.conf, when I started PgPool II
> > > > (3.0.4), my active memory started increasing and it didn't drop at all.
> > > >> > >> I left the server running and after about 20 minutes,
> > > >> 20GB
> > > > memory is in used, ended up it used swap memory because running out of memory.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> I run a reload/restart on pgpool, I gained back 14GB of
> > > >> free
> > > > memory, and slowly it started to taken up those freed memory in
> > > > active memory after about 15-20 minutes.
> > > >> > >> I tried to bring down max_connections and shared_buffers
> > > > value, and the memory doesn't stop taking up. It still slowly
> > > > gaining all the memory it wants.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Has anyone having that problem as well? I hope I can find
> > > > some answer here :)
> > > >> > >> Wanted to try out pgpool II performance but this problem
> > > >> is
> > > > the stopper for now.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Hope to get feedback from gurus in the house.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Thanks!
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> --
> > > >> > >> takizo
> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> > >> Pgpool-general mailing list > >>
> > > >> Pgpool-general at pgfoundry.org > >>
> > > >> http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Pgpool-general mailing list
> > > >> Pgpool-general at pgfoundry.org
> > > >> http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pgpool-general mailing list
> > Pgpool-general at pgfoundry.org
> > http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
>
More information about the Pgpool-general
mailing list