| To: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: pmmgr memory hog |
| From: | "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:23:42 -0500 |
| Cc: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1790828395.8575235.1423177464966.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <23273355.372.1423022546978.JavaMail.rmckee@wsrmckee> <1838902881.6952157.1423024805273.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0md25p63ji.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <1683339037.8571387.1423176489834.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20150205225822.GA28568@xxxxxxxxxx> <1790828395.8575235.1423177464966.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.2i |
Hi - > > OK, that suggests they may be unable / unwilling to help debug > > further. Nevertheless, please ask the reporter to forward his/her > > /var/log/pcp/pmmgr/pmmgr.log* files. > > I asked (yep, with full path), but none were forthcoming / found. Too bad. > What's our level of confidence re valgrind vs pmmgr? - could make > a good pmmgr QA test. Inserting a "valgrind" into qa/666:75 generates all-clean results. The larger memory consumption comes in when scanning network with the probe/avahi discoveries, which that test case doesn't do (since it's necessarily site-specific). I've run valgrind on pmmgr in the past against a larger network-scanny installation, and again no complaints. Am rerunning now. - FChE |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [pcp] ganglia2pcp question, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: pmmgr memory hog, Frank Ch. Eigler |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: pmmgr memory hog, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: pmmgr memory hog, Frank Ch. Eigler |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |