Bug 443363
Summary: | Lots of sleeping gvfsd-trash processes | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Braden McDaniel <braden> | ||||
Component: | gvfs | Assignee: | Tomáš Bžatek <tbzatek> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | low | ||||||
Version: | 9 | CC: | alexl, johnh, tsmetana | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | x86_64 | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2009-07-14 16:35:07 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Braden McDaniel
2008-04-21 06:43:02 UTC
What were you doing when this happened ? Is it reproducible ? I had one other report of this, but I haven't ever seen it myself. What was I doing? Nothing in particular that I'm aware of. As far as I can tell, this is a "normal" state of affairs. That is, I can bring up the process viewer right now and observe a similar number of gvfsd-trash processes. (I don't know if I've restarted this machine since filing this bug; but I'm sure I've logged out and back in.) So assuming this "just happens" on my machine, is there anything in particular you'd like me to check? Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping On systems where there are many automounted directories (like those in a reasonble-size enterprise), gvfs-trash is producing hundreds of running copies and clobbering the machine. The machine nearly shuts down because you end up with hundreds of suspednded processes (on my box, load was 900!). This bug was found and fixed in Unbutu, see https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gvfs/+bug/210468 They report the patch was sent upstream, see: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=525779 That patch looks different in detail but similar in intent. Given that this problem hangs boxes: 1. can the priority be raised to high? 2. can the upstream fix be propagated down? THanks. Created attachment 330438 [details]
patch from bugzilla.gnome.org
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 9. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '9'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 9's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping Fedora 9 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-07-10. Fedora 9 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |