It is not an issue of misuse.You now _have_ to call dispose, or you have a leak. I think it is well established that this is a problematic thing to say, and that there is a good reason for having a GC in place.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:19 PM, hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not sure misuse is a good argument to change this behavior. > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > > The problem is that people don't call release. > > Then they have a memory leak because of this behavior. > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:07 PM, hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> As much as any disposable type expects to be disposed. As Craig > >> pointed out, this should happen on the bootstraping code, not > >> throughout the application. I dont see the problem. But I can be > >> convinced otherwise. > >> > >> > >> Cheers, > >> hammett > >> http://hammett.castleproject.org/ > >> Sent from: Vancouver British Columbia Canada. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > _having_ to release means that we are putting the onus on the > developer > >> > to > >> > do the right thing. > >> > I think that this is a mistake to do so by default. Especially since > we > >> > generally don't need this in .Net > >> > If we do need it, we can activate the feature, and > >> > assume responsibility for > >> > its operation. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Craig Neuwirt <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
