#6588 closed defect (fixed)
trac-admin resync leaks memory FAST!
Reported by: | Owned by: | Christian Boos | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 0.11.5 |
Component: | version control | Version: | 0.10.4 |
Severity: | normal | Keywords: | svn resync memory |
Cc: | Branch: | ||
Release Notes: | |||
API Changes: | |||
Internal Changes: |
Description
I am upgrading a trac installation from 0.9.5 to 0.10.4.
As recommended, I'm trying to run a resync in our environment as the last stage of the upgrade. Unfortunately this fails about 4% before finishing, apparently due to running out of memory. The repository our project uses has over 40k revisions, and my estimation is that trac-admin resync leaks about 40 MB of memory per 1000 revisions. Well, maybe not all this is being leaked, but it grew from 30 MB (resident size) shortly after starting to over 150 MB at revision 3000.
I just created a huge swapfile to see if it succeds with more memory available.
We are using a sqlite backend.
Attachments (0)
Change History (7)
comment:1 by , 17 years ago
comment:2 by , 17 years ago
Keywords: | memory added |
---|---|
Milestone: | → 0.11.1 |
Severity: | normal → minor |
While this error is annoying, it shouldn't be a show stopper. Once you've started the resync
, the tables are cleared and populated again with each missing changeset, normally in one go. But if that fails, the next automatic resync attempt (i.e. not the resync
command, the one triggered by accessing the project through the web interface) will resume the unfinished work.
comment:3 by , 17 years ago
Component: | general → version control |
---|---|
Keywords: | verify added; sqlite removed |
Milestone: | 0.11.2 → not applicable |
Could be related to the following bug in the Python bindings for Subversion:
(while the summary of the issue indicates svn_ra, the fix and the changeset comment indicate it's a more general issue)
comment:4 by , 16 years ago
Is it possible to run this test under profiler to get more information about memory usage and other potential problems?
comment:5 by , 16 years ago
Keywords: | verify removed |
---|---|
Milestone: | not applicable → 0.11.5 |
Owner: | changed from | to
Severity: | minor → normal |
At first this seemed to work for me: using MultiRepos branch (which should be the same as trunk or even 0.11-stable in this respect) and Python 2.4.4 with SVN 1.4.3 bindings, I could resync a 26k revision repository (tried both at top-level and with scopes), with a memory usage of 25Mb growing to 30Mb and staying there for the major time of the resync (RSS).
But then, the scope used was trunk or some subfolder from trunk. As soon as I used some path which was copied from trunk (directly or as a copy of a branch), then the memory usage increased dramatically. That increase happened while there was still nothing to insert in the tables. Indeed, going back to a trunk subfolder shows the same effect when that subfolder is created late in the history of the project.
So it seems the problem is:
self.repos.next_rev(next_youngest, find_initial_rev=True)
#5213 again …
comment:6 by , 16 years ago
Status: | new → assigned |
---|
The root cause for this issue was a leak in fs.node_history(root,path)
, when the given path
didn't exist in root
. Calling fs.check_path(root,path)
first avoids the problem.
comment:7 by , 16 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
Unfortunately adding more swap does not help. I think trac-admin could just be hitting the maximum python heap size on 32-bit systems. Adding a print_exc() to the exception handler gives me:
Also, forgot to mention that we're running it on python 2.3 on RHEL4.