> On 02/11/2011 12:02 PM, Randolf Richardson wrote:
>
> >> I use reload all the time it worked OK for most modules but some modules
> >> (at least the ones that use "use base 'modulename';" ) will have problems.
> >
> > That's very interesting because where I'm seeing the crashing
> > usually
On 02/11/2011 06:26 AM, Torsten Förtsch wrote:
> Now, if an administrator turns off swapping (swapoff /dev/...) the part of
> notpresent that has been there becomes present. So, we can expect shared to
> grow considerably. unshared will shrink by the same amount.
>
> But if an administrator turns
2011/2/11 Torsten Förtsch :
> On Friday, February 11, 2011 17:20:07 Perrin Harkins wrote:
>> These days I like to use a reasonable MaxRequestsPerChild
>
> same here. I try to figure out the worst case before going life. Then
> MaxClients can be set accordingly. Plus a reasonable MaxRequestsPerChild
2011/2/11 Torsten Förtsch :
> Also, these days RAM is not the bottleneck as it was 10 years ago.
Agreed. I used to spend lots of time trying to reduce memory used by
mod_perl projects, but now I don't even look at it unless I'm running
into trouble.
- Perrin
On Friday, February 11, 2011 17:20:07 Perrin Harkins wrote:
> These days I like to use a reasonable MaxRequestsPerChild
same here. I try to figure out the worst case before going life. Then
MaxClients can be set accordingly. Plus a reasonable MaxRequestsPerChild and
you are done.
Also, these da
On Friday, February 11, 2011 17:19:04 Hendrik Schumacher wrote:
> > Interesting. I didn't know that. But I think the questions that Torsten
> > was posing about what would happen if an admin turned off swap while
> > things were running doesn't apply then, right? This memory isn't in
> > swap, it's
On Friday, February 11, 2011 17:20:07 Perrin Harkins wrote:
> I used to be a big proponent of ASL, but I rely on it less since years
> ago when you pointed out that the shared sizes were not accurate on
> Linux. I know that Smaps helps with that, but it seems fairly
> expensive so I've avoided it.
On 02/11/2011 12:02 PM, Randolf Richardson wrote:
I use reload all the time it worked OK for most modules but some modules
(at least the ones that use "use base 'modulename';" ) will have problems.
That's very interesting because where I'm seeing the crashing
usually involves code that
[sNip]
> > I find that running ModPerl on Windows generally works well until
> > Perl scripts are changed frequently (and using the Reload module),
> > and then Apache HTTPd will either stop responding or just crash out
> > (especially if PerlMagick is in the mix). I wonder if this might be
Hi,
I would go with rss - shared_size. Especially on 64bit-platforms the
total_size gives much too high values (even without swap space). Using the
other values like Pss or Swap is not possible on older kernels (I don't
have these values on EC2-instances for example). An option would be to
substra
Hi Torsten,
Thanks for the thorough explanation.
I used to be a big proponent of ASL, but I rely on it less since years
ago when you pointed out that the shared sizes were not accurate on
Linux. I know that Smaps helps with that, but it seems fairly
expensive so I've avoided it.
These days I li
Am Fr, 11.02.2011, 17:10, schrieb Michael Peters:
> On 02/11/2011 11:01 AM, Hendrik Schumacher wrote:
>
>> I didnt have time yet to read Torsten's post (will do later) but I will
>> take a stab at this question. You are missing the difference between
>> address space and used memory. Sample extract
On 02/11/2011 11:01 AM, Hendrik Schumacher wrote:
I didnt have time yet to read Torsten's post (will do later) but I will
take a stab at this question. You are missing the difference between
address space and used memory. Sample extract from /proc/*/smaps:
Size:884 kB
Rss:
Am Fr, 11.02.2011, 16:46, schrieb Michael Peters:
> On 02/11/2011 09:26 AM, Torsten Förtsch wrote:
>
>> What does that mean?
>>
>>
>> The total size of a process comprises its complete address space.
>> Normally, by
>> far not everything of this space is present in RAM.
>
> I'
On 02/11/2011 09:26 AM, Torsten Förtsch wrote:
What does that mean?
The total size of a process comprises its complete address space. Normally, by
far not everything of this space is present in RAM.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly here, but are you saying
th
On 11 Feb 2011, at 14:32, André Warnier wrote:
> Torsten Förtsch wrote:
>> Hi,
>> there is an ongoing discussion...
>
> Great "article", Torsten. Thanks.
>
>
Yes. Please post on the interwebs so I can point colleagues at it.
I think A::SL is the wrong hammer for their nail but I need strong
Torsten Förtsch wrote:
Hi,
there is an ongoing discussion...
Great "article", Torsten. Thanks.
Hi,
there is an ongoing discussion initiated by Max whether Apache::SizeLimit does
the right thing in reporting the current amount of RAM a process does not
share with any other process as
unshared_size = total_size - shared_size
Max suggests to change that definition to
unshared_size = r
Hi Thomas,
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 12:50 +0100, Thomas den Braber wrote:
> I use reload all the time it worked OK for most modules but some modules
> (at least the ones that use "use base 'modulename';" ) will have problems.
Do you have any idea why this is?
Actually I ran into this issue as well
> Has anyone tried 2.0.5 on Windows?
Yes I have compiled it with VC2010 and Activestate Perl 5.10.1 Build 1007.
It works fine I have worked with it for a couple of days now.
I have tested with Windows XP, Windows 7 and Windows 2003 all working fine.
> I find that running ModPerl on Window
20 matches
Mail list logo
