Memory leak in 2.0.7?
William R. Knox
wknox at mitre.org
Thu Aug 17 19:27:23 GMT 2000
Well, I got one response (included below with my original posting), and
I am now having the problem 13 hours after I stopped and restarted the
samba processes, so I thought I might post again, and send the message
to the samba-bugs address as well. In this case, after 13 hours, my smbd
processes were up to 18 M in size, 16-17 M of which was resident. Does
anyone have any idea what may be going on here? Other details are in the
original message below, and I'll repeat the most basic here:
samba 2.0.7, built with gcc 2.8.1 on Solaris 2.6, running almost
exclusively as a print server.
ANY ideas on what I might be able to do to prevent this would be
appreciated. I am already stopping and starting the services once a day
to try to keep them in line, but that suddenly seems to no longer be
enough. Thanks in advance for any help you can give!
Senior Operating Systems Programmer/Analyst
The MITRE Corporation
"H.-P. Ermert" wrote:
> Hello Bill,
> One of our customers told us, that samba-2.0.7 processes on Solaris 2.6
> are eating up existing memory gradually. But it did not start
> immediately after the upgrade from 2.0.5a to 2.0.7 and the Server is
> running file and print services for about 80 concurrent users
> (Windows-NT 4.0 in a domain, WinCenter standalone).
> In the current situation we will probably have to stop and restart samba
> once a week to avoid severe problems.
> It is the smbd father process that is using more and more memory (abt.
> 20 MB) and child processes inherit the memory usage .
> There are 3 different samba-configurations running (compiled for 3
> different installation locations) serving 3 different IP-Adresses on the
> same machine.
> Is there anybody else having the same problem? And a patch?
> "William R. Knox" wrote:
> > I have been experiencing a problem here after having upgraded last week
> > to 2.0.7 (from 2.0.4b) on Solaris 2.6. The smbd processes are growing in
> > size until they are taking over the system. I just had to stop and start
> > samba on a system that had smbd processes of 26 M, 24 M of which was
> > resident in memory for most of the processes. After stopping and
> > starting again, the processes are back down in size to a more normal
> > 6200 K, of which an average of 4000 K or so is resident.
> > The servers on which samba is running are print servers which handle
> > about 4000-5000 jobs a day, the vast majority of which are initiated via
> > samba connections, so smbd is constantly forking off processes. Is this,
> > as it seems to me, likely a memory leak?
> > I'd be happy to provide any additional details if anyone thinks that
> > would help. Is this a known issue?
> > --
> > Bill Knox
> > Senior Operating Systems Programmer/Analyst
> > The MITRE Corporation
> Ing. Buero Ermert ___ at ___
> Berlin ||| |||
More information about the samba