On 12/4/07, Grigory Batalov wrote: >> See >> <http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq04.056.htp>. > > Sorry, not much help. > Can you explain me, why qrunners take more and more memory (RES)?
You seem to have fewer lists and fewer numbers of members per list than some of the sites I'm familiar with, but your lists may be higher in hourly or daily traffic. > It was 25Mb maximum in my previous letter, now it is 36Mb: > > $ top > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > 17660 mailman 15 0 101M 36M 2668 S 0.0 1.8 0:41.33 qrunner > 32356 mailman 15 0 100M 35M 2668 S 0.0 1.7 0:38.30 qrunner > 17584 mailman 15 0 100M 35M 2668 S 0.0 1.7 0:40.04 qrunner > 32739 mailman 18 0 99.7M 34M 2660 S 0.0 1.7 0:33.94 qrunner > 3182 mailman 15 0 99.5M 34M 2668 S 0.0 1.7 0:39.10 qrunner > .... > > Some of them took up to 200Mb (!) before I had to restart them. > All this looks like slow and fast memory leak. That's not so different from what we've got on python.org (see <http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.015.htp>), and the RSS for our qrunners is between 11MB and 41MB, depending on the specific runner. Note that neither yours nor ours are sucking up any CPU time, so they're primed for being paged or swapped out if you do run into any memory pressure. Also note that all that Linux stats quoted on <http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq04.056.htp> are from the python.org machines. I'm not a Linux performance tuning expert, but I'm not seeing any real problems in what you've shown us so far. If you are seeing problems, then you might want to consult a Linux performance tuning expert. > My vmstat, if you are interested in: > >$ vmstat -a 1 3 >procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- ----cpu---- > r b swpd free inact active si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa > 1 0 0 1302408 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 >1 0 94 5 > 0 0 0 1302408 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1625 >0 0 99 1 > 0 0 0 1303084 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800 >0 0 88 12 > > This is OpenVZ VE on Linux. You've got over 1GB of memory that is marked as "free". I'm not seeing any memory pressure here. However, I would wonder why your command isn't showing you how much memory is inactive or active. This would seem to me to be a system problem that you probably want to get resolved, although it doesn't have anything to do with Mailman. That said, MTAs and mailing lists really, really want direct access to their disk subsystems where they handle all their messages, and they are likely to perform much worse in a virtual server environment than most other types of applications. The types of applications that will tend to perform well under virtualization are those which are CPU-bound, but are infrequently used. The I/O-bound systems, especially those that are disk I/O-bound on very specific issues like synchronous meta-data updates (which also involves lots of filesystem overhead, as well as physical disk I/O), will tend to perform poorly under virtualization. -- Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu> ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
