[Pgpool-general] Pgpool I vs Pgpool II
Lazaro Rubén García Martinez
lgarciam at vnz.uci.cu
Thu Sep 29 13:14:41 UTC 2011
Hi all, Is there an estimated date for release Pgpool-II version 3.0.5 and 3.1.1?.
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/msg03141.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