On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 02:45:20PM -0800, Aaron Wolf wrote: > On 01/27/2016 02:29 PM, Bryan Richter wrote: > > Each Etherpad pad uses 60-100MB of memory when someone has it > > open. Right now there are four open pads, using a total of 27% of > > the system's memory. > > > > I don't know if we can stand for that. Options? Thoughts? > > > > Naive non-tech-thought: That's kinda crazy. Is that costing us any > extra money? It doesn't use extra to have multiple people on the > same pad does it? Maybe we can check with norms about memory use for > etherpad and determine whether Sandstorm is adding memory. If > Etherpad would be the same either way, then it's just how it is and > we need to avoid excessive use of it…
It's not costing money yet, but if we want to have more than half a dozen documents and not experience lots of thrashing (= terrible performance) we'd have to move to a more expensive EC2 instance. Agreed we should find out if Etherpad is any better on its own, though it would be kind of a shame.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
