Re: [bitcoin-dev] Memory leaks?

[Multipool Admin <admin@multipool.us>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4507 bytes --]

I should also mention that this is definitely not an attack coming from
connected nodes.  My node experiencing the issue is only connected to 3
other nodes, all of which I control (via connect=).

--Adam

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Multipool Admin <admin@multipool.us>
wrote:

> My nodes are continuously running getblocktemplate and getinfo, and I also
> suspected the issue is in either gbt or the rpc server.
>
> The instance only takes a few hours to get up to that memory usage.
> On Oct 18, 2015 8:59 AM, "Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 14, 2015, at 2:39 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> This is *most likely* the mempool, but is just not reported correctly.
>>
>>
>> I did some testing with PR #6410's better mempool reporting. The improved
>> reporting suggests that actual in-memory usage ("usage":) by CTxMemPool is
>> about 2.5x to 3x higher than the serialized transaction sizes ("bytes":).
>> The excess memory usage that I'm seeing is on the order of 100x higher than
>> the mempool "bytes": value. As such, I think it's unlikely that this is the
>> mempool, or at least not normal/correct mempool behavior.
>>
>> Another user (admin@multipool.us) reported 35 GB of RSS usage. I'm
>> guessing his bitcoind has been running longer than any of mine. His server
>> definitely has more RAM. I don't know which email list he is subscribed to
>> (probably XT), so I'm sharing it with both lists to make sure you're all
>> aware of how big an issue this can be.
>>
>> In the meantime you can mitigate the mempool growth by setting
>> `-mintxfee`, see
>>
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.11.0/doc/release-notes.md#transaction-flooding
>>
>>
>> I have mintxfee and minrelaytxfee set to about 0.00003, which is high
>> enough to exclude essentially all of the of the 14700-14800 byte flood
>> transactions. My nodes' mempools only contain about one or two blocks'
>> worth of transactions. So I don't think this is correct either.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some additional notes on this issue:
>>
>> 1. I think it's related to CreateNewBlock() and getblocktemplate. I ran a
>> Core bitcoind process (commit d78a880) overnight with no mining connected
>> to it, and (IIRC -- my memory is fuzzy) when I woke up it was using around
>> 400 MB of RSS and the mempool was at around "bytes":10MB, "usage": 25MB. I
>> ran ./bitcoin-cli getblocktemplate once, and IIRC the RSS shot up to around
>> 800 MB. I then ran getblocktemplate every 5 seconds for about 30 minutes,
>> and RSS climbed to 1180 MB. An hour after that with more getblocktemplates,
>> and now RSS is at 1350 MB. [Edit: 1490 MB about 30 minutes later.]
>> getmempoolinfo is still showing "usage" around 25MB or less.
>>
>> I'll do some more testing with this and see if I can make it repeatable,
>> and record the results more carefully. Expect a follow-up from me in a day
>> or two.
>>
>> 2. valgrind did not show anything super promising. It did report this:
>>
>> ==6880== LEAK SUMMARY:
>> ==6880==    definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
>> ==6880==    indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
>> ==6880==      possibly lost: 288 bytes in 1 blocks
>> ==6880==    still reachable: 10,552 bytes in 39 blocks
>> ==6880==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
>> (Bitcoin Core commit d78a880)
>>
>> and this:
>> ==6778== LEAK SUMMARY:
>> ==6778==    definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
>> ==6778==    indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
>> ==6778==      possibly lost: 320 bytes in 1 blocks
>> ==6778==    still reachable: 10,080 bytes in 32 blocks
>> ==6778==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
>> (Bitcoin XT commit fe446d)
>>
>> I haven't found anything in there yet that I think would produce the
>> multi-GB memory usage after running for a few days, but I could be missing
>> it. Email me if you want the full log.
>>
>> I did not try running getblocktemplate while valgrind was running. I'll
>> have to try that. I also have not let valgrind run for more than an hour.
>>
>>
>>
>> P.S.: Sorry for all the cross-post confusion and consequent flamewar
>> fallout. While it's probably too late for this thread, I'll make sure to
>> post in a manner that keeps the threads clearly separate in the future
>> (e.g. different subject lines).
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7412 bytes --]