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-leaks-when-using-windsor-and-not-releasing-objects.aspx > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Users" 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-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
