| Summary: | C++ client memory usage increases when acknowledging messages if client's capacity is not 0 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise MRG | Reporter: | Leonid Zhaldybin <lzhaldyb> | ||||
| Component: | qpid-cpp | Assignee: | Gordon Sim <gsim> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Leonid Zhaldybin <lzhaldyb> | ||||
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | medium | ||||||
| Version: | 2.1 | CC: | esammons, gsim, jross, lzhaldyb, pmoravec | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2014-08-25 13:41:01 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Leonid Zhaldybin
2011-11-24 08:28:32 UTC
Created attachment 535819 [details]
Script to reproduce the bug.
Just untar it, change to client_memory_leak directory and type "make run".
The test lasts for about 10 minutes, which should be quite enough to reproduce the problem. To make it run longer, adjust the LOOPS_NUM variable in runtest.sh.
Bizarrely, this test passes for me on fedora 12 whether with the 0.10, 0.12 or trunk codebases. It fails on RHEL both for the 0.12 packages listed here (I used RHEL5 variants) and against trunk... The problem seems to be present on Fedora 15. I ran the test on my laptop (x86_64) for an hour and a half, and client's memory consumption increased from 292308KB to 362135KB. I can't reproduce it on either 0.18-20 or 0.22-42. Leonid, is the leak still present in either version? (In reply to Pavel Moravec from comment #6) > I can't reproduce it on either 0.18-20 or 0.22-42. > > Leonid, is the leak still present in either version? I'm unable to reproduce this as well, neither on 0.18 nor on 0.22. I propose to close it, this does not seem to be an issue for the current versions. |