Fw: [Zope] Refcount question

Andy McKay andym@ActiveState.com
Mon, 9 Jul 2001 09:52:11 -0700


With lots of blood, sweat and tears. Well not that bad but it is a pain.
Firstly rebooting the server regularly is the hacky horrible solution.
Secondly the long term fix is more complex, in our case we were storing part
of a sql result in a request, that caused a cyclical reference and the
leakage. Go through any python you may have and double check any such
references...

Cheers.
--
Andy McKay.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Bickers" <rbickers-dated-995300033.6db3d5@logicetc.com>
> To: "Andy McKay" <andym@activestate.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 9:13 AM
> Subject: RE: [Zope] Refcount question
>
>
> > How did you resolve the problem?
> > _______________________
> >
> > Ron Bickers
> > Logic Etc, Inc.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andy McKay [mailto:andym@ActiveState.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 12:08 PM
> > > To: Ron Bickers; Zope List
> > > Subject: Re: [Zope] Refcount question
> > >
> > >
> > > No, but we had a similar problem for a while. It would appear some
> objects
> > > are being leaked.
> > >
> > > Cheers.
> > > --
> > >   Andy McKay.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ron Bickers" <rbickers-dated-995298075.870779@logicetc.com>
> > > To: "Zope List" <zope@zope.org>
> > > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 8:41 AM
> > > Subject: [Zope] Refcount question
> > >
> > >
> > > > These two refcounts just keep going up.  The server has been
> > > running Zope
> > > > 2.3.3 for 18 days without any problems, but unlike many of the other
> > > > refcounts I've watched, these never go down.  I have a 14MB,
> > > 33276 object
> > > > Data.fs and the load is fairly light.
> > > >
> > > > Acquisition.ImplicitAcquirerWrapper: 4337
> > > > Shared.DC.ZRDB.Results.SQLAlias: 2687
> > > >
> > > >                                      Jun 24  Jul 9 Delta
> > > > Acquisition.ImplicitAcquirerWrapper  765     4320  +3555
> > > > Shared.DC.ZRDB.Results.SQLAlias      357     2687  +2330
> > > >
> > > > Is this normal?
> >
>