----- Original Message ----- On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 05/01/2014 03:09 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote: > >> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Michael Goulish <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Since I reported earlier that 1 messenger-based sender grew to >>> 3.4 GB after sending to 30,000 unique addrs, it seems reasonable >>> that 1000 messenger-based receivers, attempting to receive from a total >>> of 1,000,000 addrs, would have attempted to grow to a total of more >>> than 100 GB. Which would account very nicely for the behavior I saw. >>> ( The box had 45 GB mem. ) >>> >> > It would be worth actually confirming the growth of memory as you start > your receivers. The memory usage on the sender side isn't necessarily the > same as on the receiver side (depends of course what the memory is being > used for). > > I tried firing up my messenger-based receivers, each subscribing to 100 addresses, then 200, 300, 400, 500. The results are consistent across that range, and show that each extra address costs 115 KB. ( Looking only at resident-set size. ) So when I tried to do a total of 1,000,000 addrs on one box, I did indeed overwhelm my memory. That would come to 115 GB, which would have been more than double my physical mem. Please note I did not actually send any messages. A router was running for these receivers to attach to, but no senders were running. Does 115 KB per subscribed addr seem fairly reasonable? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
