The problem is that this means that you have to release. On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Craig Neuwirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
