Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

request update to concurrentlinkedhashmap 1.4.2 #6869

Closed
4 tasks
zerovian opened this issue Nov 1, 2016 · 5 comments
Closed
4 tasks

request update to concurrentlinkedhashmap 1.4.2 #6869

zerovian opened this issue Nov 1, 2016 · 5 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@zerovian
Copy link

zerovian commented Nov 1, 2016

OrientDB Version, operating system, or hardware.

  • v2.0 SNAPSHOT[ ] - .18[ ] .17[ ] .16[ ] .15[ ] .14[ ] .13[ ] .12[ ] .11[ ] .10[ ] .9[ ] .8[ ] .7[ ] .6[ ] .5[ ] .4[ ] .3[ ] .2[ ] .1[ ] .0[ ]
  • v2.1 SNAPSHOT[ ] - .16[ ] .15[ ] .14[ ] .13[ ] .12[ ] .11[ ] .10[ ] .9[ ] .8[ ] .7[ ] .6[ ] .5[ ] .4[ ] .3[ ] .2[ ] .1[ ] .0[ ]
  • v2.2 SNAPSHOT[12] - .rc1[ ] .beta2[ ] .beta1[ ]

Operating System

  • Linux
  • MacOSX
  • Windows
  • Other Unix
  • [ x] Other, name?
    All (especially solaris(

Expected behavior and actual behavior

This is a request to update to update to concurrentlinkedhashmap library to 1.4.2. Currently OrientDB 2.1.12 ships with 1.4.1. This version has a bug in it that consumes large amounts of memory when high CPU count.

Here is link to bug:
ben-manes/concurrentlinkedhashmap#43

This class is used by OProfilerStub.

Also, please consider completely disabling the profiler and not allocating any objects for it when profiler.enabled is set to false so avoid using any memory allocated by concurrentlinkedhashmap implementation.

Steps to reproduce the problem

@lvca
Copy link
Member

lvca commented Aug 5, 2017

@taburet Is this related to our recent tracking of huge memory consumed by using this library? Can we use 1.4.2?

@lvca lvca added this to the 2.2.x (next hotfix) milestone Aug 5, 2017
@taburet
Copy link
Contributor

taburet commented Aug 7, 2017

@lvca yes, that is exactly the same issue. I will check the possibility of using 1.4.2.

@zerovian
Copy link
Author

/bump

Any update on this? I see current 2.2.x is still using the buggy version.

@luigidellaquila
Copy link
Member

Hi @zerovian

I'm upgrading it now

Thanks

Luigi

luigidellaquila added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 21, 2018
@luigidellaquila
Copy link
Member

Hi @zerovian

I just pushed a fix on 2.2.x, now I'm doing the same for develop (3.0.0)

Thanks

Luigi

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants