Never thought about it this way, nice! On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:18 PM, hammett <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This behavior is supported by default. We dont share registrations of > component as Autofac does, though. Disposing a child container will > dispose the components instances there. > > Cheers, > hammett > http://hammett.castleproject.org/ > Sent from: Redmond Washington United States. > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Julian Birch <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think part of the problem is the call to Release. Separating out > > registration and containers at the interface level would allow you to > create > > multiple containers which could Release upon disposal of the container. > > Not sure if that's clear. You're probably aware of AutoFac's approach. > I > > do think it makes these questions simpler. You build the registration. > You > > create the container, and when you dispose of the container everything > gets > > thrown away. You have multiple containers for multiple scopes > (Singletons > > are a bit of a problem, but not insurmountable.). > > I've written a facility that implements this behaviour, within the > > limitations of working within the existing model. It's not for everyone, > > but it does do stuff like proxy dispose so that it calls release. > > Julian Birch > > > > > > 2009/3/4 Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> > >> > >> _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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
