On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Michael Goulish <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > ----- 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? > No, that seems quite excessive. Can you trace where the memory is actually coming from? --Rafael
