Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 21, 2019. It is now read-only.

wallet maintainence crashes #1522

Open
vikramrajkumar opened this issue Apr 27, 2015 · 6 comments
Open

wallet maintainence crashes #1522

vikramrajkumar opened this issue Apr 27, 2015 · 6 comments

Comments

@vikramrajkumar
Copy link
Contributor

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15895.msg204370.html#msg204370

@vikramrajkumar vikramrajkumar added this to the bts/0.9.1 milestone Apr 27, 2015
@maqifrnswa
Copy link
Contributor

update: I set up some vps instances and found this to be repeatable on 32 bit machines only with both TITAN and non-TITAN accounts. Every 32 bit machine crashed, and no 64 bit machine crashed.

@maqifrnswa
Copy link
Contributor

When trying to compile with clang, I get an undeclared reference to '__atomic_load_8'
which is apparently a bug in which is fixed in gcc 5:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23262
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147

When trying to run bitshares_client compiled with gcc 5, I found bug #1527, so I haven't been able to verify if this fixes anything yet.

@vikramrajkumar vikramrajkumar modified the milestones: bts/0.9.1, bts/0.9.2 May 1, 2015
@maqifrnswa
Copy link
Contributor

I have the correct thread backtrace, vikram I sent it to you via pm on bitsharetalk in case private keys can be deduced from any of the data

@maqifrnswa
Copy link
Contributor

I just upgraded a machine from 32-bit to 64-bit OS by doing a package-by-package crossgrade. bitshares uses 1/2 the memory and is significantly faster on the 64 bit OS on the same hardware, perhaps there is memory leak in 32 bit? When doing wallet maintenance memory slowly creeps up to ~4 GB then the segfaults happen on bit bit, but stays < 2 GB on 64 bit.

@abitmore
Copy link
Member

abitmore commented May 7, 2015

Perhaps because that the memory leak issue is "fixed" in v0.9.1?

@maqifrnswa
Copy link
Contributor

0.9.1 still crashed and used lots of memory on 32 bit but not on 64 bit. I tested on real hardware and vps, repeatable across all.

@vikramrajkumar vikramrajkumar removed this from the bts/0.9.2 milestone Jun 9, 2015
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants