Sean, I understand that it's natural behavior. However, based on past experience, a site as small as my blog shouldn't as much RAM as it's using. The site doesn't have that much data and it doesn't have that much load. I've worked with CF for many years and this just doesn't "smell" right.
Also, your description of the problem fits what I'm seeing. Doug -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Corfield Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 2:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Reactor For CF] Been out of touch, but trying to get back On 5/24/06, Doug Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, The memory leak has started, but it's not bad yet. I'm hovering at > about 240 megs right now. Just to point out that the JVM process size growing is natural behavior and does not necessarily indicate a leak. Unless you have the min. heap size set above the "startup" size you are going to see heap growth, potentially right up to max heap (which is why you were seeing 600Mb process sizes). You can only see a memory leak when the JVM starts to garbage collect and the free heap after GC is going down each time, i.e., the GC isn't able to reclaim as much memory each time. Eventually the process will start running GC more and more often and finally it will run out of memory. The verbose GC logging will tell you (a) how often the GC is having to run (b) whether it's a lightweight GC or a full tenured GC (the latter is bad) and (c) what each GC round actually achieves in terms of memory reclaimed etc. Beyond that is somewhat outside my area of expertise so I'll defer to Mike for more details. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://corfield.org/ Got frameworks? "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List -- [email protected] -- Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/ -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List -- [email protected] -- Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/
