Open
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
Just in case someone comes across this the checks we're now using are basically marking node offline is kmalloc item in slabinfo is at >5GB based on active object count and size of each object: |
Owner
|
I'd like to get a 1.4.3 release out the door soon(ish), and since the current Does that make sense? |
Contributor
Author
|
Ya 1.4.4 sounds fine, we have the check deployed locally and gives us a bit of time to run this in production to refine if needed. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
These checks we've used to detect kernel memory leaks that will cause a node to consume all physical memory but not be detected by conventional means like top, ps or free. We use these checks on our affected system to look for kmalloc in slabinfo that is going to consume large amounts of memory.