[SR-Users] Fwd: Possible memory leak on 5.5.x (new)?
miconda at gmail.com
Fri Jan 7 12:20:38 CET 2022
if you do dmq replication between kamailio systems running different
major versions, then it is likely to get memory leaks due to replication
of data and most probably cannot be fixed. This is because internal
structures of modules (also dmq commands) can change, practically what
an instance does is not ensured to happen on the other instance. Just
for example, from my mind, htable got some changes during past releases,
dmq also has significant enhancements by getting support for more
If you get memory leaks when you run same Kamailio major version on all
Kamailio nodes, then that can be troubleshoot and fixed.
Happy new year,
On 07.01.22 11:33, George Diamantopoulos wrote:
> Hello all and happy new year,
> I have some new information to share regarding this issue. I believe
> the previous metrics I sent to the list might not be indicative of the
> way the problem manifests. Here's what I believe so far:
> - Issue is exacerbated (or manifests) during moderate-to-high cps,
> or grows linearly with total traffic processed since last restart
> - shm stats show a lot of memory consumed by sip_msg_shm_clone
> - also reproduced this time on bullseye with kamailio 5.5.3
> Here's some more meaningful stats taken at more appropriate times
> (i.e. after more traffic has been processed) than the previous ones.
> These two kamailio instances have identical configuration and traffic
> - https://pastebin.com/gHa803kB for kamailio 5.5.3 showing high
> sip_msg_shm_clone on debian bullseye
> - https://pastebin.com/JbcZbbSQ for kamailio 5.4.6 on debian buster
> There is still DMQ use for these instances despite the version
> mismatch. Unfortunately I can't migrate all DMQ nodes to 5.5.x at this
> time, not unless I can have assurances that it is DMQ that causes this
> issue with shm memory exhaustion...
> After shmem was exhausted on 5.5.3, it stopped processing traffic. I
> issued a kamctl trap at that time but I'm assuming the backtrace won't
> show much except for the inability to allocate shm? If you think the
> backtrace at that point would be useful in any way, let me know and
> I'll try to share it privately. In case it isn't useful, what other
> debugging information can be gathered to dissect this issue? Thanks!
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 19:20, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> <miconda at gmail.com> wrote:
> for the sake of completion: the autoexpire should clean the items
> if they are not used during the expiration interval. If you want
> to get them deleted after first expiration interval always, see
> the updateexpire attribute for htable modparam.
> Also, note that replication should be done only between Kamailio
> instances with same major version, because there can be internal
> differences between major versions that can lead to unexpected
> behaviour. In other words, if you replicate, doing between two
> kamailio with version 5.5.x or between two kamailio with version
> 5.4.x, but not between a kamailkio 5.5.x and a kamailio 5.4.x.
> The total amount of used memory in the stats file for 5.5 does not
> seem to be high as a rough estimation. The highest by module is in
> htable, but it is around 20MB. Maybe you took the stats too early,
> quickly after a restart?
> On 30.06.21 17:20, George Diamantopoulos wrote:
>> Hello Daniel,
>> Thanks for the feedback. I think I might have been too quick to
>> blame htable for this behaviour. In fact, version 5.4 seems to
>> consume more memory than 5.5 (175129776 bytes vs 20581096), which
>> makes sense since it has been running for longer (I missed the
>> extra digit previously).
>> So I'm not sure htable is to blame. On the other hand, I don't
>> see any other modules using up too much of shmem either, so maybe
>> memory stats can't provide the answer here?
>> To answer your question, though, I do use DMQ and both tables
>> that use it have autoexpire set to the same value on both 5.4 and
>> /etc/kamailio# grep dmq kamailio-module-params.cfg
>> modparam("dmq", "server_address", "sip:172.30.43.1:5090
>> modparam("dmq", "notification_address",
>> modparam("dmq", "multi_notify", 1)
>> modparam("htable", "enable_dmq", 1)
>> modparam("htable", "htable",
>> modparam("htable", "htable",
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 17:43, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>> <miconda at gmail.com> wrote:
>> do you replicate items in the htable via dmq? Does the htable
>> have autoexpire value set?
>> On 30.06.21 13:54, George Diamantopoulos wrote:
>>> Forwarding my reply to the list, using gmail's reply button
>>> set Henning as the sole recipient :-\
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>> From: *George Diamantopoulos* <georgediam at gmail.com>
>>> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 02:25
>>> Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Possible memory leak on 5.5.x (new)?
>>> To: Henning Westerholt <hw at skalatan.de>
>>> Hello Henning,
>>> Thanks for your reply. Here's what has come up after a few
>>> shm55: https://pastebin.com/h9JCePmc
>>> shm54: https://pastebin.com/Nx5xEEnA
>>> It seems to me htable is the culprit? Are you seeing
>>> anything different? 54 has been running for 77020 seconds,
>>> 55 for 28521 (significantly less).
>>> I'm going to turn it off until we figure something out...
>>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 at 18:17, Henning Westerholt
>>> <hw at skalatan.de> wrote:
>>> Good observation. Please run the memory statistics CLI
>>> commands to get more hints about the module that might
>>> cause it (as per below link). Then please report more
>>> details. If you can point to a particular module, you
>>> can also open an issue on our tracker.
>>> *From:* sr-users <sr-users-bounces at lists.kamailio.org>
>>> *On Behalf Of *George Diamantopoulos
>>> *Sent:* Friday, June 25, 2021 4:53 PM
>>> *To:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>>> <sr-users at lists.kamailio.org>
>>> *Subject:* [SR-Users] Possible memory leak on 5.5.x (new)?
>>> Hello all,
>>> I'm still investigating the (most likely
>>> non-kamailio-related) memory leak of my previous message
>>> to the list, there have been no developments so far.
>>> I'll update if anything changes.
>>> This concerns a new finding which seems to affect
>>> kamailio 5.5.x. I have two kamailio instances receiving
>>> the same traffic via round-robin. I upgraded only one of
>>> them to 5.5.1 and left the other to 5.4.6 as I feared of
>>> any issues arising. I was lucky to do so, because with
>>> identical configuration, 5.5.x seems to run out of SHM
>>> very quickly. Here are links to graphs produced by our
>>> monitoring system:
>>> Old kamailio (no memory leak):
>>> New kamailio (possible leak):
>>> The configuration uses mtree, htable, vars and vns
>>> extensively. Has anyone come across anything similar?
>>> Let me know if I can provide any further information to
>>> help disect this. Thanks!
>>> Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
>>> * sr-users at lists.kamailio.org
>>> Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender!
>>> Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
>>> * https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com>
>> www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda>
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com>
> www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda>
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com
www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Training - Online
Feb 21-24, 2022 (America Timezone)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sr-users