Re: [opendds-main] Possible memory leak in v 2.3-RT14855-1

[Adam M. <mi...@oc...>]

Hi Leeland,

On 11/8/2011 10:55 AM, Leeland Artra wrote:
>
> Hello Adam,
>
> I inherited this issue and am a total newbie for OpenDDS. I am reading 
> up on ACE and OpenDDS. So I might be wrong on my answers.
>
> > Let's hear a bit more about how you're using it. In particular, are 
> you using any non-default QoS policies?
>
> For QoS policies there is a setting for:
>
>   DDS::TopicQos durable_qos;
>
>   dp_->get_default_topic_qos(durable_qos);
>
>   durable_qos.reliability.kind = DDS::RELIABLE_RELIABILITY_QOS;
>
>   durable_qos.reliability.max_blocking_time.sec = 10;
>
>   durable_qos.reliability.max_blocking_time.nanosec = 0;
>
> // [... some error code ...]
>
>   DDS::DataWriterQos dw_qos;
>
>   pub_->get_default_datawriter_qos(dw_qos);
>
>   pub_->copy_from_topic_qos(dw_qos, durable_qos);
>
>   dw_qos.history.kind = DDS::KEEP_ALL_HISTORY_QOS;
>
>

OK, so OpenDDS is configured to "keep all" DataWriter history.  This is 
probably accounting for the memory use.

> > The comment in the IDL snippet indicates that "id_" is the key field, 
> is that right?
>
> Not 100% sure but I think so too.
>
>

See the corresponding #pragma in the IDL.

> > Are you registering and/or disposing any instances?  How many 
> instances are alive?
>
> > (My guess is that OpenDDS is intentionally keeping that memory to 
> manage the various instances).
>
> I am unsure how to figure this out. I think there is one instance 
> created per connection and I managed to reproduce this memory leak 
> like behavior in a lab environment I created where this is one 
> publisher and one subscriber.
>

If there is only one instance, and id_ is the key, that would mean that 
every sample sent has the same id_.  (Or instances are explicitly 
disposed/unregistered.)

> Maybe we can IM chat on this if you are willing.
>
>

We can do that as part of our commercial support services.
http://www.opendds.org/support.html

Thanks,
Adam Mitz
Senior Software Engineer
Object Computing, Inc.