ControllerFactory also has a Release, which is the right place to invoke container.Release
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > Controller has Dispose > A lot of stuff has dispose that shouldn't have. > We shouldn't have a problem like that by default. > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Craig Neuwirt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> If you forget to close an Open File in your app, its remain locked, but >> you usually discover that during testing and fix it. If you don't need any >> releasing, don't implement IDisposable and it won't be tracked >> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:16 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. >>> - Show quoted text - >>> >>> 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 >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >>> >> >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
