These are chat archives for ManageIQ/manageiq/performance

31st
Jan 2018
Keenan Brock
@kbrock
Jan 31 2018 15:04
@dmetzger57 how do you determine hardware info?
hw method
cpus ?
gb of memory free/vmstat
disks df
nics ifconfig?
cpus is my main question
Dennis Metzger
@dmetzger57
Jan 31 2018 15:08
lscpu | egrep '^Thread|^Core|^Socket|^CPU\('
Keenan Brock
@kbrock
Jan 31 2018 15:08
whoa
nice
huh, there is a lshw, lsblk, and a few others
Dennis Metzger
@dmetzger57
Jan 31 2018 15:13
so many great tools :smile:
Pete Savage
@psav
Jan 31 2018 15:13
i love lshw
Jason Frey
@Fryguy
Jan 31 2018 17:58
@jrafanie has the fix been backported?
the ruby fix i mean
Nick LaMuro
@NickLaMuro
Jan 31 2018 18:32
@Fryguy based on the info from https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14424 (original: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14372), seems like it
Jason Frey
@Fryguy
Jan 31 2018 18:32
yes, thats what i saw too :)
but I wasn't sure when we could expect a release
Joe Rafaniello
@jrafanie
Jan 31 2018 19:18
No, the original bug was marked for backport
Jason Frey
@Fryguy
Jan 31 2018 19:19
oh i see...hard to follow their workflow
Joe Rafaniello
@jrafanie
Jan 31 2018 19:20
yeah, I didn't know their workflow, I just followed their instructions so I opened the request bug to backport it to 2.3 and 2.4 and they closed that bug and added the backport flags to the original: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/10222
Jason Frey
@Fryguy
Jan 31 2018 19:20
:+1:
Joe Rafaniello
@jrafanie
Jan 31 2018 19:26
To clarify:
  1. reported memory leak: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14372
  2. They bisected to the solution to https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/10222 and closed my bug
  3. I opened a backport request: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14424
  4. They added 2.3: REQUIRED and 2.4:REQUIRED flags to the original https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/10222 and closed my backport request
  5. I assume, when 10222 is backported, we'll get an update on the original bug
    ...
  6. profit
Jason Frey
@Fryguy
Jan 31 2018 19:27
that's still pretty good movement on it
Fryguy @Fryguy hopes for a 2.4 release
Joe Rafaniello
@jrafanie
Jan 31 2018 19:28
I think at least one other revision would need to be backported to 2.4 as I couldn't apply just that one cleanly
2.3, who knows what's required
I'm sure any 2.4 backport will be released by ruby-lang for a year before we can use it as an rpm :trollface: