It seems that a lot of people are surprised by this behavior, I think it would be wiser to no track components by default.Thoughts?
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:54 AM, kurtharriger <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't understand why this isn't the default setting either. IMHO, > Transient objects should not be tracked by default. > > As many several have noticed the issues arising tracking transient > objects for dispose is greater then the risk of not calling dispose at > all (and unless the object holds unmanaged resources, dispose is not > all that necessary anyway). A disposable component that *must be > disposed* should also implement a finalizer and that doesn't change by > using a container since there is no guarantee dispose will be called > on container either. Since release accepts the object to dispose as a > parameter there isn't any reason to track it, if object is not tracked > then assume it is transient and call dispose if implemented. > > - Kurt > > > On Mar 3, 4:57 pm, Andrew Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yea, I was worried about negative effects of this also. You don't get > > something for nothing, right? The only mention I've seen so far is a > comment > > from hammett in the another post to this group ("ViewComponent memory > > leak"): > > > > "The side effects is that you might have disposable components that are > > not being disposed by the container" > > > > In my case I know I don't have any disposable components involved, so > after > > some proper testing, I'll be applying the 'fix' to my server > > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Stefan Sedich <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > Excellent glad I could help. But I would look into releasing your > > > objects properly, not sure maybe someone can comment on negative > > > impacts of using NoTrack policy. > > > > > Cheers > > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Andrew Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > just changed the policy and re-ran a local stress test. Immediate > > > > improvement. Previous test ended with memory usage of ~200MB, this > time > > > > round 70MB > > > > thanks again! > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Stefan Sedich < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> No problems, > > > > > >> Something that caught me too, I knew a few people that were not > aware > > > >> and they had never stress tested their apps or realised it was > > > >> resetting (dangerous). I am glad I profile my stuff before putting > it > > > >> anywhere near production. I guess releasing is the way proper way to > > > >> handle things, but I have been naughty and just used NoTracking. > > > > > >> Cheers > > > > > >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Andrew Smith <[email protected] > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > Hi Stefan, > > > >> > you know as soon as I posted that, of course I came across > details on > > > >> > this > > > >> > issue. In fact your very blog post. In all the time I've used > castle, > > > I > > > >> > never realised I was expected to explicitly release a transient > > > >> > component. > > > >> > By the sounds of it, I'm sure that will be the cause as I'm using > > > >> > windsor > > > >> > integration heavily and can easily repro the issue with a local > stress > > > >> > test. > > > >> > Thanks for the info > > > >> > Cheers, > > > >> > Andrew > > > > > >> > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Stefan Sedich < > > > [email protected]> > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >> >> Andrew, > > > > > >> >> I have built a few simmilar sounding shop fronts, with medium > load > > > and > > > >> >> have not had issues with memory leaks with the app pools running > > > solid > > > >> >> until their nightly reset. > > > > > >> >> If you hit your site with a web stress testing tool do you see > the > > > >> >> memory continue to climb until app pool reset? If this is the > case it > > > >> >> is possible you have a memory leak. > > > > > >> >> I would suggest getting a tool like ANTS profiler to see if you > can > > > >> >> track down any memory leaks in your application and then go from > > > >> >> there. I would say from what I have seen in my apps ~200MB seems > > > >> >> reasonable depending on what it is doing. > > > > > >> >> In my last project I had similar issues you describe. In my case > I > > > was > > > >> >> using Windsor and not releasing my components from the container > when > > > >> >> I was done with them. In my case I decided to not release my > objects > > > >> >> and use the NoTrackingReleasePolicy instead, as this was fine for > my > > > >> >> needs and removed the leak that I had. > > > > > >> >> I have blogged about this here: > > > > >http://weblogs.asp.net/stefansedich/archive/2008/11/05/avoid-memory-l. > .. > > > > > >> >> Cheers > > > >> >> Stefan > > > > > >> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Andrew <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> >> > I've just launched an e-commerce website based on Monorail and > > > using > > > >> >> > ActiveRecord. It's a replacement of a previous PHP solution and > we > > > >> >> > have on average about 20 - 30 concurrent users at any given > time. > > > I'm > > > >> >> > also running an admin site in the same application pool. > > > > > >> >> > My issue is to do with memory usage. I'm running on a 1GB VPS > box > > > >> >> > (also hosting a SQL Server DB on same machine). I've limited > SQL > > > >> >> > Server to 200MB and my IIS6 worker process to 400MB. However, > even > > > >> >> > pre- > > > >> >> > release when testing with 1 or 2 users the memory usage would > > > easily > > > >> >> > sit around the 300MB mark. Now with the real load, I'm seeing > the > > > >> >> > application pool recycle approx every 40 mins (normally should > only > > > >> >> > recycle at 3am). I'm using the ASP.Net state service so session > > > >> >> > details are preserved but still, I'm concerned > > > > > >> >> > As I said, it's an e-commerce site so there's the usual shop > > > stuff: > > > >> >> > lots of nice pics, searches, checkout and a bit of 2nd level > > > caching > > > >> >> > for things such as categories (max 200 categories), countries, > > > rates > > > >> >> > etc. Really not that much is cached and mem usage was high > before > > > we > > > >> >> > fully optimised the site. I've been careful to have the SQL > > > profiler > > > >> >> > beside me as we were testing the app, so I'm confident that I > don't > > > >> >> > have N+1s all over the place. Oh, and I'm using standard > > > session-per- > > > >> >> > request model using Ayende's UOW stuff > > > > > >> >> > I guess what I'm asking is: Is that level of memory usage > expected > > > >> >> > for that type of site? I would love to hear back from anyone > who > > > has > > > >> >> > launched a similar type of site. > > > > > >> >> > I did see a previous post about this, but they are talking > around > > > >> >> > the > > > >> >> > 200MB mark, so I'm wondering what on earth I'm doing wrong! > > > > > >> >> > There is the option of shelling out more cash and go to a 2GB > VPS > > > >> >> > box, > > > >> >> > but I'd rather not have to.... > > > > > >> >> > cheers > > > > > >> >> -- > > > >> >> Stefan Sedich > > > >> >> Software Developer > > > >> >>http://weblogs.asp.net/stefansedich > > > > > >> -- > > > >> Stefan Sedich > > > >> Software Developer > > > >>http://weblogs.asp.net/stefansedich > > > > > -- > > > Stefan Sedich > > > Software Developer > > >http://weblogs.asp.net/stefansedich > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
