Dispose is just one type of decomission. There are other that get added dynamically by facilities which need to be applied when components are released. I think this behavior is important by default
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
