Uploaded image for project: 'Jenkins'
  1. Jenkins
  2. JENKINS-32567

Downgrade “termination trace” warnings in Jenkins logs

    XMLWordPrintable

    Details

    • Similar Issues:

      Description

      Retroactively filing PR 1993 for lts-candidate eligibility.

      https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/commit/758c0ced8586eede9ac39c2ebca0d9fc2c4d908e

        Attachments

          Activity

          Hide
          danielbeck Daniel Beck added a comment -

          Clearly, it's fixed. (Only Fixed issues are eligible)

          Show
          danielbeck Daniel Beck added a comment - Clearly, it's fixed. (Only Fixed issues are eligible)
          Hide
          ydubreuil Yoann Dubreuil added a comment -

          Daniel Beck For sure, it's fixed on master but I'd like to see this backported in next LTS.

          Show
          ydubreuil Yoann Dubreuil added a comment - Daniel Beck For sure, it's fixed on master but I'd like to see this backported in next LTS.
          Hide
          olivergondza Oliver Gondža added a comment -

          What Daniel had in mind is issues are usually tracked for master bugs and I consider them for backporting only after they are resoled (on master). I have updated the docs so users can recheck if their candidates do not get ignored: https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/pages/diffpages.action?pageId=57180302&originalId=93456004.

          Show
          olivergondza Oliver Gondža added a comment - What Daniel had in mind is issues are usually tracked for master bugs and I consider them for backporting only after they are resoled (on master). I have updated the docs so users can recheck if their candidates do not get ignored: https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/pages/diffpages.action?pageId=57180302&originalId=93456004 .
          Hide
          ydubreuil Yoann Dubreuil added a comment -

          Thanks a lot Oliver Gondža for the explanation and for backporting. Much appreciated.

          Show
          ydubreuil Yoann Dubreuil added a comment - Thanks a lot Oliver Gondža for the explanation and for backporting. Much appreciated.
          Hide
          ajbarber Andrew Barber added a comment -

          We experienced a memory leak after upgrading to a version with this patch. We had been seeing ~600MB daily log file size with these warnings present, but after the change we see unbounded growth in the memory footprint of java. Has anyone else noticed this? It might not be evident if the warning wasn't happening that often.

          Show
          ajbarber Andrew Barber added a comment - We experienced a memory leak after upgrading to a version with this patch. We had been seeing ~600MB daily log file size with these warnings present, but after the change we see unbounded growth in the memory footprint of java. Has anyone else noticed this? It might not be evident if the warning wasn't happening that often.
          Hide
          ajbarber Andrew Barber added a comment -

          Backed up to 1.642.1 from 1.642.2 and memory leak is gone. With 1.642.2 the leak doesn't show in the java console or in the monitor plugin. I only see it in the memory usage from the top command. Resident memory grows until the machine eventually runs out of physical and swap memory. Using java 1.7.0_79 on centos 5.9.

          Show
          ajbarber Andrew Barber added a comment - Backed up to 1.642.1 from 1.642.2 and memory leak is gone. With 1.642.2 the leak doesn't show in the java console or in the monitor plugin. I only see it in the memory usage from the top command. Resident memory grows until the machine eventually runs out of physical and swap memory. Using java 1.7.0_79 on centos 5.9.

            People

            • Assignee:
              Unassigned
              Reporter:
              ydubreuil Yoann Dubreuil
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              4 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: