| Author |
|
BeachBum
Super User
Joined: April 11 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1880
|
| Posted: April 24 2008 at 08:21 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lee, the only thing I could add is when I encountered a similar problem with my PLC it turned out to be my USB in the laptop. I moved it to a different system and I have not had the same problem since
__________________
Pete - X10 Oldie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BeachBum
Super User
Joined: April 11 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1880
|
| Posted: April 26 2008 at 11:48 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Updated results.. The information is from 8 days of testing. Data was collected usually in the morning. The tools used for information were Task Manager and Process Explorer. PH Alpha 4 was the level of code using a USB PLC. Scan was turned off for the majority of the test time. SDM recycled every once in a while on it’s own under control of PH. Once I had to HALTDM and let PH restart it. The information collected from Task Manager was PH working set which basically remained flat as it would go up and down depending whether PH was restored or minimized The average working set according to Task Manager was 16.7MB. SDM memory overall remained flat but did fluctuate and the average according to Task Manager was 11.3MB. The system overall memory increased from 427MB to 767MB. Handles went from 13K to 17K.Threads averaged 677 while the number of processes remained around 54. Nothing alarming using Task Manager other than the overall memory kept increasing. Data collected from Process Explorer mirrored the PH working set with an average of 16.1 MB. PH handles started out at 398 and finished at 489. This may be normal. The alarming information that may support a memory leak was the amount of Private Virtual Storage growth. It started at 29.3 MB and finished at 51.9MB. Watching and doing further testing revealed that the growth was directly related to traffic in the SDM log.
The test were stopped because I switched over to the PLM but I have restarted the test collecting only Virtual information related to PH since there is no longer the SDM to deal with. My guess is the Virtual problem is not related to the SDM but rather to the passing of data back and forth to any controller. Hopefully I can run this test longer.
__________________
Pete - X10 Oldie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BeachBum
Super User
Joined: April 11 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1880
|
| Posted: May 14 2008 at 09:19 | IP Logged
|
|
|
The memory leak test has been going on since April 26th and was terminated May 14th because of a Microsoft Critical Update.  The test was conducted using Process Explorer as the measurement tool. The 2 areas recorded were Virtual Memory Private Bytes and Peak Private Bytes. PH is at Alpha 7 and the only controller is the PLM.
The initial start point Virtual was 23.1MB and the Peak was 23.4MB. This grew every day to final recording of Virtual 93.7MB and the Peak 96.5MB. At the same time this was also eating up overall Virtual for the whole system. A similar but shorter test using the PLC indicated the same trend. On a system that does not have a controller attached the memory stats have remained consistent without much variation. That system has been up for 26 days.
Someone want to speculate the overall impact from the results?
__________________
Pete - X10 Oldie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
dhoward
Admin Group
Joined: June 29 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4447
|
| Posted: May 18 2008 at 22:02 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Pete,
It would seem to indicate a memory leak with either the Insteon implementation or possibly the Microsoft COMM controller (serial port activex).
The PLC having a leak wouldnt really surprise me since it seems that lots of people have complained about the SDM (non Power-Home users included). But with the PLM, the SDM is out of the equation so that just leaves us with the MS activeX or something in my Insteon implementation since the PH without a controller did not increase.
I would guess that the next test would be to try to add a controller other than Insteon (but serial controlled) to try and isolate to a serial or Insteon problem (or it could even be a general "controller" problem which I suppose could be tested for by using an IP based controller such as Elk or Global Cache).
Let me know if you are able to do any other testing. In my own setup using the PLM, when I initially went to the PLM, I had no memory increses (using task manager). In my current install (running 22 days), I seem to have increased by about 70MB. I run PH as a service and I didnt seem to get this increase until I killed PowerHome from the Task Manager and let the phservice auto-restart the app. It might be coincidence or it might have some bearing. I need to restart my system and try restarting cleanly to establish a new baseline.
Dave.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BeachBum
Super User
Joined: April 11 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1880
|
| Posted: May 19 2008 at 09:05 | IP Logged
|
|
|
I don't have another type serial controller so that's out and also I'll be gone for a month. Again I was testing with Process Explorer if that makes a difference.
__________________
Pete - X10 Oldie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
PowerHome Messageboard : PowerHome General
Topic: Memory Leak and Handle Count
