I was travelling yesterday, plus we are still fighting a few fires since the 3.4 upgrade. To answer some of the questions/suggestions people have posted:
1. Yes, I'm sure we're running 7.6 TCL. I ran into a few problems with 8.X because we (intentionally) use poorly-constructed lists in a couple of places and 8.X complains while 7.6 doesn't. Second, I didn't want to deal with the character set issues right now - sounds like a mess. Third, 7.6 is faster than 8.X in the limited testing I've done, even in CPU-bound loops. I'm assuming this is because ns_shares are more efficient in 7.6, but not sure. Here's the test I did: 2. The server that is growing is a special-purpose server. Over 90% of all requests are one of two kinds, which should make tracking down the cause a lot easier. This server may do a lot of execs in some cases, which is why I asked about that. Our main server, with a large variety of pages, seems to be doing fine memory-wise. (And hasn't crashed - YAY!) The special server does around 750K hits/day. 3. We have monitoring tools that complain if a server takes longer than 10 seconds to respond to a request. It has been complaining about this same server. I remember when I ran benchmarks with some version of AS that it would periodically "go to sleep" for several seconds with the CPU idle. I need to go back and see if I can duplicate that behavior because I think we are seeing it in production. 4. We don't have adp even configured, but I'll check out the fastpath stuff for memory usage. We don't serve any static pages and very few graphics from AS. Here's an interesting stat: around 80% of our graphics hits are for a group of less than 20 files. (Not 80% of the graphics data transfers mind you, but 80% of the hits) 5. In one of my posts I said this server is not accumulating data in ns_shares, but didn't mean that it doesn't use them at all. All of our servers use ns_shares - alot. What I meant was that we are not doing anything that would explain why the server would start out with 81MB with the ns_shares loaded, then grow to 240MB. We do create new ns_share array entries while it's running, but not to this extent. We don't use nsv's - IMO that programming model is broken because regular TCL constructs can't be used on nsv's. Overall, I'd have to say I'm real happy with the upgrade from 2.3.3. 3.4 is more stable and the fact that we now have the source for the server we are running is a HUGE deal. Running 2.3.3 was pretty scary business-wise, especially when AOL bought Netscape and the future of AS seemed a bit in doubt. Footnote: is anyone (or most people) using zippy? I still haven't tried that. Jim > Harry Moreau wrote: > > Personally, I'm heartened to hear other people see leaks > > Yea, me too! I have several systems where nsd 3.2+ad12 will slowly ... > janine >
