Perhaps Cisco is just trying to force us to buy more memory: ID: 79764 Feature-set: bgp Title: Memory Leak in BGP Router process Reported: 11.1(7) 11.2(2) State: J There appears to be a Memory Leak in BGP Router Process. Notice the State. It is J - which stands for Junked - which means they will not fix this since it isn't viewed as an important problem. Hank
I hope the smiley face was omitted accidentally! The bug report was junked (by the way, we don't junk legitimate bug reports) because the router in question was a 7200 with 32M of memory taking full routing from several peers. It simply didn't have enough memory. There was no evidence of a memory leak. Needless to say, if there had been a leak, it would have had high priority. The gent who opened the bug report in the first place was "unfamiliar" with the environment. :-) Robert. Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Perhaps Cisco is just trying to force us to buy more memory:
ID: 79764 Feature-set: bgp Title: Memory Leak in BGP Router process Reported: 11.1(7) 11.2(2) State: J
There appears to be a Memory Leak in BGP Router Process.
Notice the State. It is J - which stands for Junked - which means they will not fix this since it isn't viewed as an important problem.
Hank
7206s need 64MB, in my experience, to take even one full view. 4x00s are more than fine. Something about I/O memory allocation, though even *that* doesn't fully explain it. The box seems to perform very well as a super-POP router, however. Avi
I hope the smiley face was omitted accidentally!
The bug report was junked (by the way, we don't junk legitimate bug reports) because the router in question was a 7200 with 32M of memory taking full routing from several peers. It simply didn't have enough memory. There was no evidence of a memory leak. Needless to say, if there had been a leak, it would have had high priority.
The gent who opened the bug report in the first place was "unfamiliar" with the environment. :-)
Robert.
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Perhaps Cisco is just trying to force us to buy more memory:
ID: 79764 Feature-set: bgp Title: Memory Leak in BGP Router process Reported: 11.1(7) 11.2(2) State: J
There appears to be a Memory Leak in BGP Router Process.
Notice the State. It is J - which stands for Junked - which means they will not fix this since it isn't viewed as an important problem.
Hank
On Wed, 1 Jan 1997, Robert Craig wrote: In the future to avoid misunderstandings, suggest that closed or junked problems contain a fuller explanation as you stated below.
I hope the smiley face was omitted accidentally!
The bug report was junked (by the way, we don't junk legitimate bug reports) because the router in question was a 7200 with 32M of memory taking full routing from several peers. It simply didn't haveenough memory. There was no evidence of a memory leak. Needless to say, if there had been a leak, it would have had high priority.
The gent who opened the bug report in the first place was "unfamiliar" with the environment. :-)
Robert.
HankNussbacher wrote:
Perhaps Cisco is just trying to force us to buy more memory:
ID: 79764 Feature-set: bgp Title: Memory Leak in BGP Router process Reported: 11.1(7) 11.2(2) State: J
There appears to be a Memory Leak in BGP Router Process.
Notice the State. It is J - which stands for Junked - which means they will not fix this since it isn't viewed as an important problem.
Hank
Hank Nussbacher
Agreed, the release notes should have been updated with the reason the bug was being junked. Robert. Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 1997, Robert Craig wrote: In the future to avoid misunderstandings, suggest that closed or junked problems contain a fuller explanation as you stated below.
I hope the smiley face was omitted accidentally!
The bug report was junked (by the way, we don't junk legitimate bug reports) because the router in question was a 7200 with 32M of memory taking full routing from several peers. It simply didn't haveenough memory. There was no evidence of a memory leak. Needless to say, if there had been a leak, it would have had high priority.
The gent who opened the bug report in the first place was "unfamiliar" with the environment. :-)
Robert.
HankNussbacher wrote:
Perhaps Cisco is just trying to force us to buy more memory:
ID: 79764 Feature-set: bgp Title: Memory Leak in BGP Router process Reported: 11.1(7) 11.2(2) State: J
There appears to be a Memory Leak in BGP Router Process.
Notice the State. It is J - which stands for Junked - which means they will not fix this since it isn't viewed as an important problem.
Hank
Hank Nussbacher
In cisco.external.nanog you write:
Agreed, the release notes should have been updated with the reason the bug was being junked.
Better for the junked bugs to not show up.. I am contacting folks to fix it.. --ravi
Robert.
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 1997, Robert Craig wrote: In the future to avoid misunderstandings, suggest that closed or junked problems contain a fuller explanation as you stated below.
I hope the smiley face was omitted accidentally!
The bug report was junked (by the way, we don't junk legitimate bug reports) because the router in question was a 7200 with 32M of memory taking full routing from several peers. It simply didn't haveenough memory. There was no evidence of a memory leak. Needless to say, if there had been a leak, it would have had high priority.
The gent who opened the bug report in the first place was "unfamiliar" with the environment. :-)
Robert.
HankNussbacher wrote:
Perhaps Cisco is just trying to force us to buy more memory:
ID: 79764 Feature-set: bgp Title: Memory Leak in BGP Router process Reported: 11.1(7) 11.2(2) State: J
There appears to be a Memory Leak in BGP Router Process.
Notice the State. It is J - which stands for Junked - which means they will not fix this since it isn't viewed as an important problem.
Hank
Hank Nussbacher
participants (4)
-
Avi Freedman -
Hank Nussbacher -
Ravi Chandra -
Robert Craig