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

Downgrade “termination trace” warnings in Jenkins logs

    • Icon: Bug Bug
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Icon: Minor Minor
    • core
    • core

      Retroactively filing PR 1993 for lts-candidate eligibility.

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

          [JENKINS-32567] Downgrade “termination trace” warnings in Jenkins logs

          Yoann Dubreuil created issue -

          Daniel Beck added a comment -

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

          Daniel Beck added a comment - Clearly, it's fixed. (Only Fixed issues are eligible)
          Daniel Beck made changes -
          Resolution New: Fixed [ 1 ]
          Status Original: Open [ 1 ] New: Resolved [ 5 ]

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

          Yoann Dubreuil added a comment - danielbeck For sure, it's fixed on master but I'd like to see this backported in next LTS.
          Oliver Gondža made changes -
          Labels Original: lts-candidate New: 1.642.2-fixed

          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.

          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 .

          Thanks a lot olivergondza for the explanation and for backporting. Much appreciated.

          Yoann Dubreuil added a comment - Thanks a lot olivergondza for the explanation and for backporting. Much appreciated.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.
          R. Tyler Croy made changes -
          Workflow Original: JNJira [ 168216 ] New: JNJira + In-Review [ 198375 ]

            Unassigned Unassigned
            ydubreuil Yoann Dubreuil
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            3 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: