Il 14/04/2016 13:38, Daniel Nicoletti ha scritto:
2016-04-14 8:17 GMT-03:00 Riccardo Magliocchetti
Il 14/04/2016 13:04, Daniel Nicoletti ha scritto:
yesterday I was doing an experiment to see how fast would it be to uwsgi
spawn 1000 workers with my app loaded, it took ~2s but 1.5GB of RAM,
then instead of 1000 process I started 1 process and 1000 threads, namely
my plugin will instantiate 1000 QThreads, and memory usage was 300MB
now I got surprised of this, so I wrote an application that would load my
app like uwsgi and fork 1000, granted this app doesn't have any protocols
handling, and forking 1000 used 300MB as using threads did.
uwsgi process here is of 800KB of size and my test app was of 100KB,
which is aproximately the difference.
Is less than a MB per process really that much?
Sorry that was a typo, the uwsgi *file* has 800KB, each process takes ~1.5MB,
so comparing 300MB to 1.5GB is around 1.2GB of memory that could
be free to other stuff. Yes it's unlikely that I'll spawn 1000 workers
for a single
app but 100 apps with 10 workers would result in the same.
Aren't QThreads threads though? If so you are comparing processes with threads
which is unfair.
Now I wonder why is uwsgi so big? Can it's protocols be split in plugins
loaded at runtime to reduce this? It even seemed that share libraries
Unless you embed plugins that's they way things currently are
didn't add up to free due shared nature, maybe it would be useful if
uwsgi had a shared library, to possibily share among process. Or even
is there something different about how uwsgi forks()? maybe explicity
sharing less if that's even possible?
As in any software of course things could be improved :)
sure, I'm trying to understand what could be improved in this case
Well, then just fire up valgrind and see where the memory is used :)
Some low hanging fruit would be to reorder fields in structs but unfortunately
we can't because of ABI compatibility.
Note that I dunno which build options Debian used to uwsgi, maybe it's
possible to compile with reduced size or maybe it would just be better if
it had it's code split into plugins.
Most of the stuff is already splitted in plugins :)
Even protocols are loaded at runtime?
I don't think so.
--
Riccardo Magliocchetti
@rmistaken
http://menodizero.it
_______________________________________________
uWSGI mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
