Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Original comment by Uwe.Daue...@gmail.com
on 21 May 2010 at 4:03
Attachments:
I attached another load plot, the first row showing the processes CPU load in
blue.
This time it is an out of the box SVN checkout installation, just started the
boot
node with no keys stored and no other nodes communicating to.
Also attached is a RedBug trace from the boot node tracing the
gen_component:loop/4.
There it looks cyclon and dht_node receive many messages. (Maybe this is just
the phenomenon when the systems tries to load balance out as it is responsible
for too
many replications...?)
I will let a small set of nodes (4) run over the weekend to see if the same
effect
happens then. Also to see if the load trend is expected to level off at a
certain
amount.
Original comment by Uwe.Daue...@gmail.com
on 22 May 2010 at 3:03
Attachments:
Having >= nodes than replica amounts running, the CPU load stays low. So I
assume the
load balancing was the cause.
Is this behaviour intended?
Original comment by Uwe.Daue...@gmail.com
on 22 May 2010 at 3:30
Could you please run the following in your shell, when the problem happens?
[erlang:process_info(P, messages) || P <-
process_dictionary:find_all_processes(cyclon)].
It will return the messages currently in cyclon's message queue.
I tried to verify your problem, but I don't get the high load. You are using an
umodified Scalaris from the SVN and run ./bin/boot.sh, right?
Original comment by schu...@gmail.com
on 28 May 2010 at 8:04
Yes, I run an unmodified Scalaris from the SVN and run ./bin/boot.sh. It also
happens
when I run a customized version.
I will let a set run during the day or weekend and then apply the process_info
command.
Original comment by Uwe.Daue...@gmail.com
on 28 May 2010 at 8:07
I did run a single node over the weekend, but it looks like I can't reproduce
this
issue with the latest SVN revision anymore. The CPU stays idle and in the
cyclon
process the message queue is mostly empty; sometimes this:
[{messages,[{check_state},
{check_state},
{check_state},
{check_state},
{check_state},
{check_state},
{check_state},
{check_state},
{check_state}]}]
which I guess is fairly OK.
I guess this issue can be closed as I can't reproduce it right now.
Original comment by Uwe.Daue...@gmail.com
on 30 May 2010 at 4:45
Attachments:
Original comment by schin...@gmail.com
on 31 May 2010 at 9:01
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
Uwe.Daue...@gmail.com
on 21 May 2010 at 4:01