[keycloak-user] Major Memory Leak/Consumption When Creating Many Users

[Stian Thorgersen]

Are you only creating users or are you also authenticating users? User
sessions are kept purely in memory so obviously the more you create the
more memory is used. Only creating users should not continue to increase,
but will do so for a while at least due to the way Java garbage collection
works.

I would only have the user cache disabled for testing memory leak.
Re-enable it and retest with it before you eventually go into production as
it will have a significant impact on performance.

On 23 June 2016 at 01:10, Chris Hairfield <chairfield at gmail.com> wrote:

> Scratch the results of the graph I posted. I was running the test
> incorrectly. I'll post back with the results of the test run properly.
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:38 PM Chris Hairfield <chairfield at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thomas, this test is run with whatever local database Keycloak defaults
>> to. We're using Postgres generally, and we will have more information
>> pertaining to tests against Postgres soon.
>>
>> Stian, thanks for the tips. I am currently running a test to ingest about
>> 50m users into the default database with the user cache disabled, 8gb mem
>> (Xmx and Xms), and parallel GC threads == processor count.
>>
>> Though my test is young (430k users ingested), I'm noticing memory
>> allocation increasing in lockstep with the number of ingested users. Is it
>> expected to continue in this fashion, or is Keycloak designed to level off
>> in its memory usage?
>>
>> [image: increasing-heap.png]
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:29 PM Stian Thorgersen <sthorger at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Keycloak by default caches users in-memory, by default it will keep up
>>> to 10000 entries cached. You can verify that there's no leak by disabling
>>> the user cache provider. See
>>> http://keycloak.github.io/docs/userguide/keycloak-server/html/server_cache.html#d4e3187
>>>
>>> If you're planning on having millions of users I suggest you increase
>>> the allocated memory for the JVM (512MB which it seems you have is not
>>> sufficient).
>>>
>>> On 22 June 2016 at 00:29, Chris Hairfield <chairfield at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> When testing Keycloak 1.9.8 by ingesting a few million users, we find
>>>> that Keycloak leaks memory until it is rendered unresponsive (see graph).
>>>> Increasing JVM memory only increases the time it takes to encounter this
>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>> We have put together a test project here
>>>> <https://github.com/anaerobic/keycloak-leakage> and opened an issue
>>>> here <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-3146> as we continue to
>>>> investigate. As we are relying on Keycloak as a central infrastructural
>>>> component, any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> We'll update with more information as we find it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> [image: mem-cpu.png]
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> keycloak-user mailing list
>>>> keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-user/attachments/20160623/27a45221/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mem-cpu.png
Type: image/png
Size: 100050 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-user/attachments/20160623/27a45221/attachment-0002.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: increasing-heap.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11436 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-user/attachments/20160623/27a45221/attachment-0003.png