hmm, just did the same exercise using openejb (no tomee, no tomcat) and 1.6.0 uses about the same as the 1.5.1 so the issue is either in tomee integration or tomcat itself
*Romain Manni-Bucau* *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* 2013/5/2 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > currently looking but here are the dumps: > > https://gist.github.com/anonymous/d65b3f832c1a6958a6d8 (1.6.0) > https://gist.github.com/anonymous/d5a1c50a9ef2050a5cde (1.5.1) > > > *Romain Manni-Bucau* > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* > > > > 2013/5/2 Howard W. Smith, Jr. <[email protected]> > >> did you see what classes were using the additional memory in 1.6.0 ? >> >> >> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> > reproduced it with an app which has no jsf stuff at all >> > >> > 1.5.1: 75M at startup, 130 at runtime (about), 33 after GC >> > 1.6.0: 100M at startup, 150 at runtime, 40 after GC >> > >> > *Romain Manni-Bucau* >> > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* >> > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*< >> > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> >> > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* >> > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* >> > >> > >> > >> > 2013/5/2 Howard W. Smith, Jr. <[email protected]> >> > >> > > Also, prior to using 2013-04-29 tomee 1.6.0 snapshot, I would check >> > memory >> > > used by TomEE and would see nice level right between 200m and 400m...a >> > > lot...even while users are logged in, doing work. >> > > >> > > Again, prior to using 2013-04-29 tomee 1.6.0 snapshot, I was using >> > > 2013-03-27 version for almost 1 month. I'm always quite satisfied with >> > > snapshot versions (very stable and reliable, IMO). >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Howard W. Smith, Jr. < >> > > [email protected] >> > > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Howard W. Smith, Jr. < >> > > > [email protected]> wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >>> Probably in TomEE we do not yet remove all our scanning results >> and >> > > >>> temporary boot stuff after booting up the container. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >> I think I have recognized that whenever I do a heap dump and I >> search >> > > >> 'classes' for 'jsf.'. >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > CLARIFICATION: i usually do heap dumps when TomEE is kinda/quite >> > inactive >> > > > (no users logged in)...just to monitor GC a bit. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> 'jsf.' is how i search for many of my beans, but 'myfaces' >> > > >> classes/instances are always at the top of the list (which means >> > myfaces >> > > >> are using more memory than my classes). >> > > >> >> > > >> i usually only see 1 instance of my (normal) 'scoped' beans and my >> > > >> largest bean is only using like 1,600(K) bytes, I think (that's a >> > rough >> > > >> estimate). >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > CLARIFICATION: my non-normal-scoped beans usually list as '0' (zero) >> > > > instances and I think 0 (zero) memory used... of course, they are at >> > the >> > > > bottom of the list. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
