Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: Swap Leak on Solaris 9 and a posting from last year by Grzegorz Goryszewski

Re: Swap Leak on Solaris 9 and a posting from last year by Grzegorz Goryszewski

From: Mark Strickland <>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:05:00 -0800
Message-ID: <>

Solved! This seems to be a Perfect Storm of Stupidness. On further investigation, we discovered that ocssd.bin was running from a instead of our current ORACLE_HOME. When we applied the patchset last October, we actually did a fresh install into a new ORACLE_HOME. We failed to correct /etc/init.d/init.cssd with the new ORACLE_HOME. The two standby servers are not RACified and we don't use ASM so we don't actually even need to run ocssd.bin. At any rate, running it from the wrong ORACLE_HOME hadn't caused any problems until yesterday when a Qualys port scan was run on both servers. The combination of the port scan and running ocssd.bin from the wrong ORACLE_HOME somehow caused ocssd.bin to grab 12-GB of swap on one server and 6-GB on the other server and it was gradually sucking up more until we ran out of swap on one of the servers this morning and would have run out of swap on the other server soon. It didn't show up as used swap, it actually reduced the total swap size on the servers. I fixed the init.cssd on both servers and re-started cssd.bin and we ran another port scan. No problem. The size of the cssd.bin process stayed very low and total swap size stayed where it should be. We have no clue what the interactions really are that would cause this. If anyone thinks they know, I'm all eyes.

We had scheduled a Qualys scan to run on the RAC cluster Thursday night, but it probably would not have caused a problem because we applied the in place on those servers and didn't change the ORACLE_HOME. Mark

On 2/13/07, Mark Strickland <> wrote:
> New information. On the logical standby server, the total swap size
> plunged yesterday morning from 14-GB to 1.8-GB when the network admin ran
> a Qualys port scan. On the physical standby server, I don't collect OS
> stats, but total swap size (not swap available...TOTAL swap size) was 450-MB
> a few minutes ago and the size of the ocssd process was 6-GB. I just killed
> ocssd and total swap size jumped back up to 6.6-GB and seems to be rising
> steadily and is now at 6.9-GB. The network admin just ran another port
> scan on the logical standby server and total swap size plunged from 14-GB to
> 2-GB and seems to be steadily dropping. At the same time, the size of the
> ocssd process jumped from 30-MB to 12-GB. So, we need to figure out the
> relationship between the port scan, swap, and the ocssd daemon.
> Thanks for responding.
> Mark
> On 2/13/07, Hameed, Amir <> wrote:
> >
> > Mark,
> > We are running Solaris 9 and the OS is patched up with DST patches. We
> > have some large enterprise level servers, E20K, E6900 as well as small
> > servers, like v490, etc. running Oracle9i and Oracle 10g databases but I
> > have not experienced this issue on our servers. I can monitor some servers
> > to see if we are leaking swap space.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* [mailto:
> >] *On Behalf Of *Mark Strickland
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:34 PM
> > *To:*
> > *Subject:* Swap Leak on Solaris 9 and a posting from last year by
> > Grzegorz Goryszewski
> >
> > This past weekend, we patched our Production Sun servers with Solaris
> > patches and the Oracle DST patch. On two of those servers which host
> > standby databases (one server for physical, one server for logical), we are
> > seeing swap space gradually drop down to almost nothing from 14-GB. Just
> > had to re-boot one of the servers and the other one is not far behind. A
> > Google search came up with a posting on this list from last year from
> > Grzegorz Goryszewski who was experiencing the same thing. Grzegorz, are you
> > monitoring this list still? Did you find a solution? Has anyone else seen
> > this behavior?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mark Strickland
> > Seattle, WA
> >
> >

Received on Tue Feb 13 2007 - 17:05:00 CST

Original text of this message