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-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 >> >> > > > > > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
