On May 30, 12:48 pm, chrominance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PID PPID RSS COMMAND
> 17122 1 21504 /home/---/webapps/django/apache2/bin/httpd -f /
> home/---/webapps/django/apache2/conf/httpd.conf
> 14180 14154 1808 sshd: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/2
> 14181 14180 1464 -bash
> 14892 17122 20496 /home/---/webapps/django/apache2/bin/httpd -f /
> home/---/webapps/django/apache2/conf/httpd.conf
> 14893 17122 20496 /home/---/webapps/django/apache2/bin/httpd -f /
> home/---/webapps/django/apache2/conf/httpd.conf
> 15175 14181 940 /bin/sh /home/---/scripts/mem-usage
> 15176 15175 764 ps -u --- -o pid,ppid,rss,command
> 15177 15175 708 awk {print $0}{sum+=$2} END {print "Total", sum/1024,
> "MB"}
> Total 66.58 MB
>
> So it appears the first apache2 process is the parent. I'm going to
> guess from your comments that 21MB is perhaps a bit much for the
> parent apache process.
Depends on what RSS means for that platform when running ps. This may
count private memory used plus shared memory use. If Webfaction is
counting shared memory use in your 40MB limit would suck somewhat, as
they would be double counting across all processes.
If you run 'top' it generally splits resident (private) from shared in
what it outputs. You may be able to get 'ps' to show them separately,
but need to find which field to display.
If you do 'ldd' on Apache executable you can get an idea of all the
shared libraries it links with. There might be a fare few. These
should count as being shared, what is left over is effectively private
memory used by process, although by rights the Apache modules also
should be seen as shared, but for mod_python in certain case this may
not be so.
BTW, if you run 'ldd' on the mod_python.so file from the Apache
modules directory, does it use Python as a shared library or is there
no reference to libpython2.?.so at all, meaning it is embedded with in
mod_python.so? What is the actual size of your mod_python.so file?
> As for what's being loaded: mod_python, mod_log_config, mod_dir,
> mod_mime, mod_rewrite, mod_env. Most of those look fairly important,
> though I haven't done any research into it. Obviously mod_python is
> needed at the very least.
Others shouldn't use much memory, the mod_python one is main issue
which is why I asked about whether it uses a shared library for Python
or not, as not using a shared library can on some systems cause
private memory related to mod_python to be larger than it needs to be.
> Stopping and restarting apache does work as promised, as all my apache
> processes are back to ~3MB each (15MB total). After a couple of hits
> usage goes up to about 35MB.
Base Django setup can take up 5-7MB without even your own stuff so it
can jump up quite a bit. Is that 35MB in total across all processes or
per process?
> So I guess it could still be a memory
> leak, though I've run ab a couple of times (1000 requests, 100
> concurrency) and the memory footprint never seems to increase very
> much.
What version of mod_python are you using?
Graham
> On May 29, 10:29 pm, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > What is important to understand with Apache is that there is a parent
> > process, which effectively acts as a supervisor process, and the child
> > processes which actually accept and handle requests. When one uses
> > 'restart' with the traditional 'apachectl' management command, it only
> > kills off and restarts the child processes and does not stop the
> > parent process. Because the child processes are a fork of the parent
> > process, if for some reason there was a memory leak in the parent
> > process, that leak would be inherited by the child process on a
> > 'restart'. To fully kill off the parent and the children, you would do
> > a 'stop' followed by a 'start' if using 'apachectl'. As to what the
> > Webfaction script does I can only speculate.
>
> > What you need to thus do is get 'ps' to also output the 'PPID' value
> > using 'l' flag so you can work out which is the parent 'httpd'
> > process. For example:
>
> > $ ps axlwww | egrep '(PPID|httpd)'
>
> > UID PID PPID CPU PRI NI VSZ RSS WCHAN STAT TT
> > TIME COMMAND
> > 0 429 1 0 31 0 31364 2004 - Ss ??
> > 0:00.11 /usr/local/apache-2.2.4/bin/httpd -k start
> > 70 430 429 0 31 0 30524 592 - S ??
> > 0:00.00 /usr/local/apache-2.2.4/bin/httpd -k start
> > 501 431 429 0 31 0 31136 852 - S ??
> > 0:00.01 /usr/local/apache-2.2.4/bin/httpd -k start
> > 501 432 429 0 31 0 31136 848 - S ??
> > 0:00.01 /usr/local/apache-2.2.4/bin/httpd -k start
> > 70 433 429 0 31 0 45296 1172 - S ??
> > 0:00.01 /usr/local/apache-2.2.4/bin/httpd -k start
> > 70 434 429 0 31 0 45296 1176 - S ??
> > 0:00.01 /usr/local/apache-2.2.4/bin/httpd -k start
>
> > The parent process here is 429. Normally this process should only use
> > quite small amounts of private memory. I have never seen an instance
> > of where the parent process ballooned out in size, but if you have a
> > dodgy Apache module it feasibly might. For example, from 'top':
>
> > PID COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #PRTS #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE
> > VSIZE
> > 434 httpd 0.0% 0:00.01 27 55 93 496K 2.73M 1.15M
> > 44.2M
> > 433 httpd 0.0% 0:00.01 27 55 93 496K 2.73M 1.14M
> > 44.2M
> > 432 httpd 0.0% 0:00.00 1 10 37 204K 2.50M 848K
> > 30.4M
> > 431 httpd 0.0% 0:00.00 1 10 37 208K 2.50M 852K
> > 30.4M
> > 430 httpd 0.0% 0:00.00 1 10 33 188K 2.02M 592K
> > 29.8M
> > 429 httpd 0.0% 0:00.11 1 11 38 60K 2.73M 1.96M
> > 30.6M
>
> > Ie., 60Kbytes here only, versus 200-500Kbytes for children.
>
> > Anyway, work out whether how you are restarting Apache is killing of
> > the parent process. If not work out how to restart Apache so it is.
> > Also look at how much memory the parent is using and see if it is
> > small.
>
> > This at least is some sanity checks you can do.
>
> > BTW, what Apache modules are actually being loaded using LoadModule
> > directive.
>
> > Graham
>
> > On May 30, 11:42 am, chrominance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I've restarted apache several times, using the restart command in the
> > > webapps/django directory provided by Webfaction. Perhaps there's a
> > > more absolute restart command I don't know about, but I'm pretty sure
> > > that's the one--whenever I use it, memory usage seems to go down.
>
> > > Also, I'm not sure if this is relevant, but whenever I do restart the
> > > apache processes, memory usage doesn't reset to the same baseline
> > > level--for example, the site ran just fine with about 30-40MB of RAM
> > > over the weekend, but restarting apache now only gets us down to about
> > > 65MB. And upon my last check the apache processes peaked at about
> > > 85MB. If there's a memory leak in my application, it wouldn't still
> > > leak after I've restarted apache, would it?
>
> > > I'll try the Webfaction forum too. Thanks, and keep the advice coming!
>
> > > On May 29, 8:15 pm, "Jay Parlar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 5/29/07, chrominance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > I've recently put up a newspaper site on Webfaction that was developed
> > > > > without much concern for memory limits--coming from PHP, my knowledge
> > > > > of memory issues is practically nil. Of course, Webfaction's plans all
> > > > > have memory limits, and we're currently on Shared 1, which imposes a
> > > > > 40MB limit. We're running the standard apache2/mod_pythonconfig, with
> > > > > media served via a separate apache2 process as Webfaction and the
> > > > > Django site recommends. The Debug setting has been set to False. I
> > > > > believe those are the standard steps recommended for reducing resource
> > > > > usage.
>
> > > > Did you remember to restart Apache after setting Debug to False? I
> > > > have a site running on Shared1, and the memory usage was close to what
> > > > you have, until I set Debug to False and restarted.
>
> > > > Also, you might want to ping the Webfaction Django forum
> > > > (http://forum.webfaction.com/viewforum.php?id=19) as they're pretty
> > > > good about responding, and one of the admins might check if something
> > > > is wrong with your config.
>
> > > > And I *believe* the "3 small sites" comes from the fact that on
> > > > Shared1, a max of 3 Apache processes will run, so you can run a site
> > > > on each process. I might be completely wrong on that though.
>
> > > > Jay P
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django users" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
