On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 02:53:49PM -0800, Bryan Richter wrote:
> 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.

I should point out that our instance of Sandstorm is still completely
experimental. It has no backups and it's not even being served on the
right port.

If we can't resolve this memory issue, we should probably just scrap

Does somebody want to talk to #sandstorm and figure out if I'm looking
at things totally wrong?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to