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>