Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:51:38 +0200
From:      Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To:        Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Karl Pielorz <kpielorz_lst@tdx.co.uk>
Subject:   Re: Threaded 6.4 code compiled under 9.0 uses a lot more memory?..
Message-ID:  <20121030175138.GA73505@kib.kiev.ua>
In-Reply-To: <509012D3.5060705@mu.org>
References:  <A92CE63E6E6DB93B366F4A42@MightyAtom.tdx.co.uk> <20121030182727.48f5e649@X220.ovitrap.com> <E46B717DCFC9273E8BEC5100@MightyAtom.tdx.co.uk> <20121030194307.57e5c5a3@X220.ovitrap.com> <615577FED019BCA31EC4211B@Octca64MkIV.tdx.co.uk> <509012D3.5060705@mu.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--Cou6PmgoyP0+llr2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:48:03AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Some suggestions here, jemalloc, kernel threads are good ones.
>=20
> Another issue may just be some change for default thread stack size. =20
> This would explain why the RESIDENT set is the same, but the VIRTUAL grew.
I suggest to take a look at where the actual memory goes.

Start with procstat -v.
>=20
> -Alfred
>=20
> On 10/30/12 9:56 AM, Karl Pielorz wrote:
> >
> >
> > --On 30 October 2012 19:43 +0700 Erich Dollansky=20
> > <erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Depends how you mean 'the same' - on the 6.4 system it shows:
> >>>
> >>>    cc (GCC) 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305
> >>>
> >>> And, on the 9.0-S it shows:
> >>>
> >>>    cc (GCC) 4.2.1 20070831 patched [FreeBSD]
> >>>
> >>> So 'same' - but different versions.
> >>>
> >> did you check the default data sizes?
> >
> > How do you mean?
> >
> >>> Now they've been running for an hour or so - they've gotten a little
> >>> larger 552M/154M and 703M/75M.
> >>>
> >>> If it's not harmful I can live with it - it was just a bit of a
> >>> surprise.
> >>
> >> And a reason to spend more money on memory. Knowing the real reason
> >> would be better.
> >>
> >> I can understand your surprise.
> >
> > Hehe, more 'concern' than surprise I guess now...
> >
> > The sendmail milter has grown to a SIZE/RES of 1045M / 454M under 9.0.=
=20
> > The original 6.4 machine under heaver load (more connections) shows a=
=20
> > SIZE/RES of 85M/52M.
> >
> > The TCP listener code is now showing a SIZE/REZ of 815M/80M under 9.0=
=20
> > with the original 6.4 box showing 44M/9.5M
> >
> > The 9.0 box says it has 185M active, 472M inactive, 693M wired, 543M=20
> > buf, and 4554M free.
> >
> > At this stage I'm just a bit concerned that at least the milter code=20
> > is going to grow, and grow - and die.
> >
> > I would think it would last over night so I'll see what the figures=20
> > are in the morning.
> >
> > Thanks for the replies...
> >
> > -Karl
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to=20
> > "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

--Cou6PmgoyP0+llr2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAlCQE6kACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4hzbQCgpQizTWFRrtVoJatrAZgHqY7O
sQ8AoJgEduJnT2YqEZEGhdMtU9MXEV5j
=Yh67
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Cou6PmgoyP0+llr2--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121030175138.GA73505>