VB.net Garbage collector not releasing objects

Question

First of all, thanks in advance for your help.

I've decided to ask for help in forums like this one because after several months of hard working, I couldn't find a solution for my problem.

This can be described as 'Why an object created in VB.net isn't released by the GC when it is disposed even when the GC was forced to be launched?"

Please consider the following piece of code. Obviously my project is much more complex, but I was able to isolate the problem:

Imports System.Data.Odbc
Imports System.Threading
Module Module1
    Sub Main()
        'Declarations-------------------------------------------------      
            Dim connex As OdbcConnection 'Connection to the DB
            Dim db_Str As String         'ODBC connection String      
        'Sentences----------------------------------------------------
            db_Str = "My ODBC connection String to my MySQL database"
            While True
                'Condition: Infinite loop.
                connex = New OdbcConnection(db_Str)
                connex.Open()
                connex.Close()

                'Release created objects
                connex.Dispose()

                'Force the GC to be launched
                GC.Collect()

                'Send the application to sleep half a second
                System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(500)
            End While
    End Sub
End Module

This simulates a multithreaded application making connections to a MySQL database. As you can see, the connection is created as a new object, then released. Finally, the GC was forced to be launched. I've seen this algorithm in several forums but also in the MSDN online help, so as far as I am concerned, I am not doing anything wrong.

The problem begins when the application is launched. The object created is disposed within the code, but after a while, the availiable memory is exhausted and the application crashes.

Of course, this problem is hard to see in this little version, but on the real project, the application runs out of memory very quickly (due to the amount of connections made over the time) and as result, the uptime is only two days. Then I need to restart the application again.

I installed a memory profiler on my machine (Scitech .Net Memory profiler 4.5, downloadable trial version here). There is a section called 'Investigate memory leaks'. I was absolutely astonished when I saw this on the 'Real Time' tab. If I am correct, this graphic is telling me that none of the objects created on the code have been actually released:

The surprise was even bigger when I saw this other screen. According to this, all undisposed objects are System.Transactions type, which I assume are internally managed within the .Net libraries as I am not creating any object of this type on my code. Does it mean there is a bug on the VB.net Standard libraries???:

Please notice that in my code, I am not executing any query. If I do, the ODBCDataReader object won't be released either, even if I call the .Close() method (surprisingly enough, the number of unreleased objects of this type is exactly the same as the unreleased objects of type System.Transactions)

Another important thing is the statement GC.Collect(). This is used by the memory profiler to refresh the information to be displayed. If you remove it from the code, the profiler wont' update the real time diagram properly, giving you the false impression that everything is correct.

Finally, if you ommit the connex.Open() statement, the screenshot #1 will render a flat line (that means all the objects created have been successfully released), but unfortunatelly, we can't make any query against the database if the connection hasn't been opened.

Can someone find a logical explanation to this and also, a workaround for effectively releasing the objects?

Thank you all folks.

Nico

Answer 1

Dispose has nothing to do with garbage collection. Garbage collection is exclusively about managed resources (memory). Dispose has no bearing on memory at all, and is only relevant for unmanaged resources (database connections, file handles, gdi resource, sockets... anything not memory). The only relationship between the two has to do with how an object is finalized, because many objects are often implemented such that disposing them will suppress finalization and finalizing them will call .Dispose(). Explicitly Disposing() an object will never cause it to be collected¹.

Explicitly calling the garbage collector is almost always a bad idea. .Net uses a generational garbage collector, and so the main effect of calling it yourself is that you'll hold onto memory longer, because by forcing the collection earlier you're likely to check the items before they are eligible for collection at all, which sends them into a higher-order generation that is collected less often. These items otherwise would have stayed in the lower generation and been eligible for collection when the GC next ran on it's own. You may need to use GC.Collect() now for the profiler, but you should try to remove it for your production code.

You mention your app runs for two days before crashing, and are not profiling (or showing results for) your actual production code, so I also think the profiler is in part misleading you here. You've pared down the code to something that produced a memory leak, but I'm not sure it's the memory leak you are seeing in production. This is partly because of the difference in time to reproduce the error, but it's also "instinct". I mention that because some of what I'm going to suggest might not make sense immediately in light of your profiler results. That out of the way, I don't know for sure what is going on with your lost memory, but I can make a few guesses.

The first guess is that your real code has try/catch block. An exception is thrown... perhaps not on every connection, but sometimes. When that happens, the catch block allows your program to keep running, but you skipped over the connex.Dispose() line, and therefore leave open connections hanging around. These connections will eventually create a denial of service situation for the database, which can manifest itself in a number of ways. The correction here is to make sure you always use a finally block for anything you .Dispose(). This is true whether or not you currently have a try/catch block, and it's important enough that I would say the code you've posted so far is fundamentally wrong: you need a try/finally. There is a shortcut for this, via a using block.

The next guess is that some of your real commands end up fairly large, possibly with large strings or image (byte[]) data involved. In this case, items end up on a special garbage collector generation called the Large Object Heap (LOH). The LOH is rarely collected, and almost never compacted. Think of compaction as analogous to what happens when you defrag a hard drive. If you have items going to the LOH, you can end up in a situation where the physical memory itself is freed (collected), but the address space within your process (you are normally limited to 2GB) is not freed (compacted). You have holes in your memory address space that will not be reclaimed. The physical RAM is available to your system for other processes, but over time this still results in the same kind of OutOfMemory exception you're seeing. Most of the time this doesn't matter: most .Net programs are short-lived user-facing apps, or ASP.Net apps where the entire thread can be torn down after a page is served. Since you're building something like a service that should run for days, you have to be more careful. The fix may involve significantly re-working some code, to avoid creating the large objects at all. That may mean re-using a single or small set of byte arrays over and over, or using streaming techniques instead of string concatenation or string builders for very large sql queries or sql query data. It may also mean you find this easier to do as a scheduled task that runs daily and shuts itself down at the end of the day, or a program that is invoked on demand.

A final guess is that something you are doing results in your connection objects still being in some way reachable by your program. Event handlers are a common source of mistakes of this sort, though I would find it strange to have event handlers on your connections, especially as this is not part of your example.

_{¹ I suppose I could contrive a scenario that would make this happen. A simple way would be to build an object assumes a global collection for all objects of that type... the objects add themselves to the collection at construction and remove themselves at disposal. In this way, the object could not be collected before disposal, because before that point it would still be reachable... but that would be a very flawed program design.}

Answer 2

Thank you all guys for your very helpful answers.

Joel, you're right. This code produces 'a leak' which is not necesarily the same as 'the leak' problem I have on my real project, though they reproduce the same symptoms, that is, the number of unreleased objects keep growing (and eventually will exhaust the memory) on the code mentioned above. So I wonder what's wrong with it as everything seems to be properly coded. I don't understand why they are not disposed/collected. But according to the profiler, they are still in memory and eventually will prevent to create new objects.

One of your guesses about my 'real' project hit the nail on the head. I've realized that my 'catch' blocks didn't call for object disposal, and this has been now fixed. Thanks for your valuable suggestion. However, I implemented the 'using' clause in the code in my example above and didn't actually fix the problem.

Hans, you are also right. After posting the question, I've changed the libraries on the code above to make connections to MySQL.

The old libraries (in the example):

System.Data.Odbc

The new libraries:

System.Data
Microsoft.Data.Odbc

Whith the new ones, the profiler rendered a flat line, whithout any further changes on the code, which it was what I've been looking after. So my conclussion is the same as yours, that is there may be some internal error in the old ones that makes that thing to happen, which makes them a real 'troublemaker'.

Now I remember that I originally used the new ones on my project (the System.Data and Microsoft.Data.Odbc) but I soon changed for the old ones (the System.Data.Odbc) because the new ones doesn't allow Multiple Active Recordsets (MARS) opened. My application makes a huge amount of queries against the MySQL database, but unfortunately, the number of connections are limited. So I initially implemented my real code in such a way that it made only a few connections, but they were shared accross the code (passing the connection between functions as parameter). This was great because (for example) I needed to retrieve a recordset (let's say clients), and make a lot of checks at the same time (example, the client has at least one invoice, the client has a duplicated email address, etc, which involves a lot of side queries). Whith the 'old' libraries, the same connection allowed to create multiple commands and execute different queries.

The 'new' libraries don't allow MARS. I can only create one command (that is, to execute a query) per session/connection. If I need to execute another one, I need to close the previous recordset (which isn't actually possible as I am iterating over it), and then to make the new query.

I had to find the balance between both problems. So I end up using the 'new libraries' because of the memory problems, and I recoded my application to not share the connections (so each procedure will create a new one when needed), as well as reducing the number of connections the application can do at the same time to not exhaust the connection pool.

The solution is far to ideal as it introduces spurious logic on the application (the ideal case scenario would be to migrate to SQL server), but it is giving me better results and the application is being more stable, at least in the early stages of the new version.

Thanks again for your suggestions, I hope you will find mines usefult too.

Cheers.

Nico