In order to take benefits of KSM there should be a “reasonable” amount of identical memory pages in different processes. This works well with virtual machines. In case of application server, theoretically, you do not have much source for that.
Andriy Kornatskyy On Jun 16, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Roberto De Ioris <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I also didn't found KSM to be big memory saver, I guess that preforking >> nature of uWSGI already provides big savings - interpreter memory is >> already deduplicated since fork() is handled by copy-on-write under linux. >> > > +1 > > of about 1000 uWSGI+KSM installation, i think less than 5% are really > getting sensible gain from it. But it does not hurt, so i generally > continue to enable it. > > Another bet for the future is the 2.1 forkserver: > https://github.com/unbit/uwsgi-docs/blob/master/ForkServer.rst > > it allows the sysadmin to define in which "place" of the app to fork(). > This could be another way for saving memory (or higly reducing startup > times) > > -- > Roberto De Ioris > http://unbit.it > _______________________________________________ > uWSGI mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi _______________________________________________ uWSGI mailing list [email protected] http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
