2.0.2 memory footprint

Rails
1

http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/
The article above says, if I did understand it correctly, that the 2.0.2
memory footprint should be smaller than that of 1.2.6.

After migrating my web app to 2.0.2 I found that the memory footprint
has actually increased by circa 2Mb.

So who is right, the article above or my web app?
Am I doing something wrong?

Thank you in Advance,
Emanuele.

2

On 15 Apr 2008, at 13:50, Emanuele R. wrote:

http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/
The article above says, if I did understand it correctly, that the
2.0.2
memory footprint should be smaller than that of 1.2.6.

After migrating my web app to 2.0.2 I found that the memory footprint
has actually increased by circa 2Mb.

By memory footprint, which of the 4 different measures of memory usage
did you look at ?

Fred

3

Frederick C. wrote:

On 15 Apr 2008, at 13:50, Emanuele R. wrote:

http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/
The article above says, if I did understand it correctly, that the
2.0.2
memory footprint should be smaller than that of 1.2.6.

After migrating my web app to 2.0.2 I found that the memory footprint
has actually increased by circa 2Mb.

By memory footprint, which of the 4 different measures of memory usage
did you look at ?

Fred

RSS

4

On 15 Apr 2008, at 14:11, Emanuele R. wrote:

After migrating my web app to 2.0.2 I found that the memory
footprint
has actually increased by circa 2Mb.

By memory footprint, which of the 4 different measures of memory
usage
did you look at ?

Fred

RSS

The blog article doesn’t mention any reduction in RSS and also says
why it’s not particularly useful a measurement (in this context).

Fred

5

On 15 Apr 2008, at 16:39, Emanuele R. wrote:

did you look at ?
I see. I hoped for a reduction in memory usage by rails…

I’m no expert, but what he’s saying is that because of the way ruby
allocates memory, it’s not always obvious how the 2 correlate.

and 2.0.2 it happens almost as soon as with the first request.

Any clue?

Not the slightest.

Fred

6

Frederick C. wrote:

On 15 Apr 2008, at 14:11, Emanuele R. wrote:

After migrating my web app to 2.0.2 I found that the memory
footprint
has actually increased by circa 2Mb.

By memory footprint, which of the 4 different measures of memory
usage
did you look at ?

Fred

RSS

The blog article doesn’t mention any reduction in RSS and also says
why it’s not particularly useful a measurement (in this context).

Fred

I see. I hoped for a reduction in memory usage by rails…

Talking about memory maybe you might give me some light on an issue
thats bothering me since long:

It seems that the nearest the memory fotprint gets to 30Mb or around
with my web apps the sooner it hysterically jumps to 34-37Mb.
I noticed so because with lighttpd which has a lower footprint my app
grows slowly depending on classes loaded through the requests till it
gets to around 30Mb than it jumps to 34-37. With mongrel that has a
bigger footprint it takes less to trigger the memory jump. With mongrel
and 2.0.2 it happens almost as soon as with the first request.

Any clue?

7

Thank you very much.
I thought it was a memory leak, but couldn’t find any.

8

On Apr 15, 2008, at 8:54 AM, Frederick C. wrote:

has actually increased by circa 2Mb.
why it’s not particularly useful a measurement (in this context).
It seems that the nearest the memory fotprint gets to 30Mb or around
Not the slightest.

Fred

–
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Ruby allocated memory in 8Mb chunks. So when your process gets close
to 16Mb it will jump to 24Mb and when it gets close to 32Mb it will
jump to ~40 and so on.

Cheers-

9

Any clues on how to change this behaviour?

http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/149847#new

10

I solved the memory spike problem as you can read here:
http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/149847