RE: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memory usage.
>From: "Jeff Stuart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Gunther Birznieks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memory usage. >Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:07:24 -0400 > >I understand that. :) And that was something that I had to learn myself. >:) It's a BAD thing when suddenly your httpd process takes up 100 MB. :) >It's just that it sounded like Shane was saying that his httpds were >starting OUT at 4 to 6 MB. That sounded a little unusual to me but then >again, I've pared down my httpd config so that I don't have things in that >I >don't need. > >I'm just curious as to what he has in there. Why not post here the .conf files and then compare them ? > >-- >Jeff Stuart >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >-Original Message- >From: Gunther Birznieks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 1:24 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memory usage. > >If you aren't careful with your programming, an apache HTTPD can always >grow pretty quickly because Perl never releases the RAM it allocates >previously. While it does that reference count garbage collection, that is >internal to the RAM that was allocated. > >Let's say you need to sort a record set returned from a DBI call in an >unusual perl-like way. If you do this "in memory", you need an array to >hold the entire recordset in memory at once. If you do this, though, you >will allocate the RAM for that one request that sorted the array and then >the HTTPD will remain that size forever. > >Keeping the higher RAM allocation is good for performance if you have the >RAM of course. So this is one of those design tradeoffs. And Perl was not >really written to be a persistent language, so again, the tradeoff of >operational speed seems to make sense versus persistent memory usage. > >Later, >Gunther > >At 12:25 AM 4/18/00 -0400, Jeff Stuart wrote: > >Shane, question for you. No offense intended here at all but what do you > >have in your apache servers (other than mod_perl) that use 4 to 6 MB? >I've > >got one server that I'm working on that handles close 1 Mil hits per day > >than runs WITH mod_perl that uses 4 to 6 MB. ;-) Without mod_perl, it > >takes up around 500 to 800 KB. Now on another server my mod_perl server > >uses about 13 Mb per but it's my devel machine so I've got a lot of stuff > >loaded that I wouldn't have in a production server. > > > >-- > >Jeff Stuart > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >-Original Message- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 6:46 PM > >To: Perrin Harkins > >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memory usage. > > > >Your apache processes would be the size of a stock > >apache process, like 4-6M or so, and you would have 1 process that > >would be 25MB or so that would have all your registry in it. > >__ >Gunther Birznieks ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Extropia - The Web Technology Company >http://www.extropia.com/ > __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: NT/IIS/PerlEx vs (MS)-ASP : stupid benckmark
>From: Gunther Birznieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: Nicolas MONNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: Valter Mazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: NT/IIS/PerlEx vs ASP : stupid benckmark >Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 22:03:12 -0400 > >It may be a "stupid" benchmark. But no one seems to have commented on the >CPU >rates. Why was PerlEx 100% and PerlScript 45% on the same machine, NB.it's M$-ASP not PerlScript valter same >ActiveState Perl (presumable), same CPU config. And yet took the same >amount of >time to complete. > >I find that interesting. I suspect that it is a trick with how the OS views >CPU >time (eg user time vs system calls vs IO wait) in the two architectures, >but it >would be interesting to know why this is. Especially if mod_perl ends up >adopting a similar round robining of Perl interpreters among apache threads >later on down the line (becoming more similar to PerlEx architecture). > >Later, >Gunther > >Nicolas MONNET wrote: > > > On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Valter Mazzola wrote: > > |i've made a stupid unscientific benckmark: > > | > > |the program loops 100 and print a series of "a ", PerlEx takes the >same > > |time as ASP (same NT machine) , BUT processor goes 100% with PerlEx, >45% > > |with ASP. > > | > > |Can someone benchmark mod_perl under Win32, using the same stupid >program ? > > > > I don't mean to be rude, but this is one stupid benchmark! Basically > > useless for that matter. You're not going to demonstrate anything with > > this. > > > > Now a good question is: what would be a good benchmark? > > > > What about doing some real life stuff, like get big results from a > > database, and calculate something over them, and print the (big?) result > > back? > > > > (Now this is not flamebait, I'm really wondering: why run mod_perl apps >on > > WinNT? ) > __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: NT/IIS/PerlEx vs ASP : (my) stupid benckmark
>From: Nicolas MONNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Valter Mazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: NT/IIS/PerlEx vs ASP : stupid benckmark >Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 20:35:00 +0200 (CEST) > >On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Valter Mazzola wrote: >|i've made a stupid unscientific benckmark: >| >|the program loops 100 and print a series of "a ", PerlEx takes the >same >|time as ASP (same NT machine) , BUT processor goes 100% with PerlEx, 45% >|with ASP. >| >|Can someone benchmark mod_perl under Win32, using the same stupid program >? > >I don't mean to be rude, but this is one stupid benchmark! Basically >useless for that matter. You're not going to demonstrate anything with >this. > i agree with you, really. But this is a numeric result, and a bit significative: if you print a lot, asp 'seems' better. >Now a good question is: what would be a good benchmark? an average script choosen from the hundreds that we make db+file ... > >What about doing some real life stuff, like get big results from a >database, and calculate something over them, and print the (big?) result >back? > i agree also for this (see my posting to [EMAIL PROTECTED]), i've written this (very) stupid in the hope that someone do better (and is simple...) >(Now this is not flamebait, I'm really wondering: why run mod_perl apps on >WinNT? ) > (because my company doesn't use unix/linux but WinNt+asp, and i stress everyday about linux/perl ...) hello Nicolas (sorry for my probably bad english) valter __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Benckmarking
Why not make a benckmark between ASP, PerlEX, mod_perl under Win32 ? Using the same hardware and same (ported to asp) simple scripts. CAn be useful to have a small script that connects to an access db and performs some simple query. thank you, valter __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
NT/IIS/PerlEx vs ASP : stupid benckmark
>From: Gunther Birznieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: mod_perl compat on win32? RE: mod_perl weaknesses? help me
>build a case
>Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 13:40:51 +0800
>
>
>
>Soulhuntre wrote:
>
> > Hiya :)
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Leslie Mikesell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 1:34 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: mod_perl weaknesses? help me build a case
> > >
> > > Your problem here is going to be that mod_perl is not thread-safe
> > > and will serialize everything when running under the threaded
> > > model that apache uses under windows. If your scripts are fast enough
> > > you might be able to live with this if you use it as a back end
> > > to a lightweight front-end proxy which a busy site needs anyway.
> >
> > Ok... that makes sense :)
> >
> > On a side note... is mod_perl/apache on linux compatible with
>IIS/operlex
> > from activestate on the Win32 side?
> >
>
>For all intents and purposes, PerlEx is basically compatible with
>mod_perl/Apache::Registry. However, the END {} blocks are interpreted
>differently (augh!)... which shouldn't really be that much of an issue for
>most programs.
>
>The good thing about PerlEx as opposed to mod_perl/Win32 is that instead of
>serializing all the calls to one Perl interpreter, ActiveState Perl
>actually
>creates multiple Perl interpreter "objects" that can be round-robined among
>the IIS threads.
>
> >
> > If so, that's a big boost for me...
> >
>
>I've been testing all my code on both PerlEx and mod_perl. And haven't had
>very many problems at all with compatibility. I think UNIX/mod_perl is
>faster
>than NT/IIS/PerlEx on the same hardware (from my unscientific observation),
>but PerlEx seems much faster than ASPs.
>
i've made a stupid unscientific benckmark:
the program loops 100 and print a series of "a ", PerlEx takes the same
time as ASP (same NT machine) , BUT processor goes 100% with PerlEx, 45%
with ASP.
Can someone benchmark mod_perl under Win32, using the same stupid program ?
>Later,
>Gunther
>
>
__
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
RE: Re: Segfault on DBI->Connect
>From: James G Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >CC: Valter Mazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Doug MacEachern ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Segfault on DBI->Connect >Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 00:13:14 -0500 > >Doug MacEachern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Valter Mazzola wrote: > > > >> i've a mod_perl script that connect to a mysql db, but sometimes it >segfault > >> on DBI->connect. i'm using Apache::Registry & Apache::DBI for >persistend db > >> connection, use strict and the script it's a package. i've read the >docs but > >> probably i'm missing something. > > > >if you could provide info the SUPPORT doc asks for (including >stacktrace), > >that would help. > >Definitely. I remember running into something like this before. >I searched the list archives, but couldn't find it -- reminds me >to make the subject meaningful :) > >If I remember correctly, this was a problem that could be traced >to the DBD::mysql module. Specifically, the DBD::mysql::db::_login >call (lines 104-160 of DBD/mysql.pm). But it's been at least half >a year since then, so take this as a rough guide as to where you >might want to look. >+ thank you for your answer, i'll look into A NOTE: Will be wonderful to have more mod_perl debug info when similar events happens without to becoming too crazy with setting up a decent debug ... specially for newbies .. like me. it's difficult to do a thing like Velocigen, instead of having mod_perl crashing apache when things goes wrong (due to inexperienced people...like me?) __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Segfault on DBI->Connect
i've a mod_perl script that connect to a mysql db, but sometimes it segfault on DBI->connect. i'm using Apache::Registry & Apache::DBI for persistend db connection, use strict and the script it's a package. i've read the docs but probably i'm missing something. The persistent DBI connection is ok as i can see from DBI->trace(4) in the error_log thank you for your help in advance valter mazzola, italy __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
