Memory leak in 2.0.7?

William R. Knox wknox at
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!
			Bill Knox
			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?
> Regards
>   Peter
> "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    ||| |||
>  IT-Consultant

More information about the samba mailing list