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

Memory consumption higher from v4.29.0 in workers #1819

Closed
moisses89 opened this issue Dec 29, 2023 · 6 comments
Closed

Memory consumption higher from v4.29.0 in workers #1819

moisses89 opened this issue Dec 29, 2023 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@moisses89
Copy link
Member

Describe the bug
Memory consumption from transaction services workers is increasing from v4.29.0.

image

@moisses89 moisses89 added the bug Something isn't working label Dec 29, 2023
@moisses89 moisses89 self-assigned this Dec 29, 2023
@Uxio0
Copy link
Member

Uxio0 commented Jan 15, 2024

Could it be related to bumping Celery version on d1f8b4d ?

@moisses89
Copy link
Member Author

Could it be related to bumping Celery version on d1f8b4d ?

Celery update was in v4.30.0 the issue started on 4.29.0

@Uxio0
Copy link
Member

Uxio0 commented Jan 15, 2024

Good to know, thanks!

@moisses89
Copy link
Member Author

After research the different commits on v4.29.0 we detect that the issue is related with Celery and non-root user.
The two commits related with root user was reverted to ensure that this is the reason.
image
Taking a look of memory consumption of version v4.31.0 with the reverted commits we can conclude that the issue is in this two commits.
image

@Uxio0
Copy link
Member

Uxio0 commented Feb 6, 2024

@luarx do you think we can close this with the new version?

@luarx
Copy link
Contributor

luarx commented Feb 6, 2024

Sure, go for it!

@Uxio0 Uxio0 closed this as completed Feb 6, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants