yes, but generally just the root object and the component burden does the rest which is very important service
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
