html_url,issue_url,id,node_id,user,created_at,updated_at,author_association,body,reactions,performed_via_github_app,issue
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2186#issuecomment-393846595,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2186,393846595,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM5Mzg0NjU5NQ==,6404167,2018-06-01T10:57:09Z,2018-06-01T10:57:09Z,CONTRIBUTOR,"@meridionaljet I might've run into the same issue, but I'm not 100% sure. In my case I'm looping over a Dataset containing variables from 3 different files, all of them with a `.sel` and some of them with a more complicated (dask) calculation. (still, mostly sums and divisions) The leak seems mostly happening for those with the calculation. 

Can you see what happens when using the distributed client? Put `client = dask.distributed.Client()` in front of your code. This leads to many `distributed.utils_perf - WARNING - full garbage collections took 40% CPU time recently (threshold: 10%)` messages being shown for me, indeed pointing to something garbage-collecty.

Also, for me the memory behaviour looks very different between the threaded and multi-process scheduler, although they both leak. (I'm not sure if leaking is the right term here). Maybe you can try `memory_profiler`?

I've tried without succes:
- explicitly deleting `ds[varname]` and running `gc.collect()`
- explicitly clearing dask cache with `client.cancel` and `client.restart`
- Moving the leaky code in its own function (should not matter, but I seemed to remember that it sometimes helps for garbage collect in edge cases)
- Explicitly triggering computation with either dask `persist` or xarray `load` and then explicitly deleting the result

For my messy and very much work in process code, look here: https://github.com/Karel-van-de-Plassche/QLKNN-develop/blob/master/qlknn/dataset/hypercube_to_pandas.py
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,326533369
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2198#issuecomment-393066421,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2198,393066421,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM5MzA2NjQyMQ==,6404167,2018-05-30T07:56:52Z,2018-05-30T08:04:34Z,CONTRIBUTOR,"Might be related to:
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/1225#issuecomment-307519054
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/628","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,327613219
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2190#issuecomment-392666250,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2190,392666250,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM5MjY2NjI1MA==,6404167,2018-05-29T06:27:52Z,2018-05-29T06:35:02Z,CONTRIBUTOR,"@shoyer Thanks for your answer. Too bad. Maybe this could be documented in the 'dask' chapter? Or maybe even raise a warning when using open_dataset with `lock=False` on a netCDF4 file?

Unfortunately there seems to be some conflicting information floating around, which is hard to spot for a non-expert like me. It might of course just be that xarray doesn't support it (yet). I think MPI-style opening is a whole different beast, right? For example:

- python-netcdf4 support parallel read in threads: https://github.com/Unidata/netcdf4-python/issues/536
- python-netcdf4 MPI parallel write/read: https://github.com/Unidata/netcdf4-python/blob/master/examples/mpi_example.py http://unidata.github.io/netcdf4-python/#section13
- Using h5py directly (not supported by xarray I think): http://docs.h5py.org/en/latest/mpi.html
- Seems to suggest multiple read is fine: https://github.com/dask/dask/issues/3074#issuecomment-359030028

> You might have better luck using dask-distributed multiple processes, but then you'll encounter other bottlenecks with data transfer.

I'll do some more experiments, thanks for this suggestion. I am not bound to netCDF4 (although I need the compression, so no netCDF3 unfortunately), so would moving to Zarr help improving IO performance? I'd really like to keep using xarray, thanks for this awesome library! Even with the disk IO performance hit, it's still more than worth it to use it.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,327064908
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/1971#issuecomment-392572591,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1971,392572591,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM5MjU3MjU5MQ==,6404167,2018-05-28T17:12:51Z,2018-05-28T17:13:56Z,CONTRIBUTOR,"Seems like the distributed scheduler is the advised one to use in general, so maybe some tests could be added for this one. For sure for diskIO, would be interesting to see the difference.


http://dask.pydata.org/en/latest/setup.html

> Note that the newer dask.distributed scheduler is often preferable even on single workstations. It contains many diagnostics and features not found in the older single-machine scheduler. The following pages explain in more detail how to set up Dask on a variety of local and distributed hardware.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,302930480