On 24 Feb 2011, at 15:44, Fred Moyer wrote:
> 2011/2/24 Torsten Förtsch :
>> On Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:27:42 Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>>> What's the rough ETA before this makes it to CPAN?
>>
>> end of April, perhaps.
>
> We can release this earlier than 2.0.6 if there are enough testers
2011/2/24 Torsten Förtsch :
> On Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:27:42 Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>> What's the rough ETA before this makes it to CPAN?
>
> end of April, perhaps.
We can release this earlier than 2.0.6 if there are enough testers to
give feedback.
On Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:27:42 Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> What's the rough ETA before this makes it to CPAN?
end of April, perhaps.
Torsten Förtsch
--
Need professional modperl support? Hire me! (http://foertsch.name)
Like fantasy? http://kabatinte.net
What's the rough ETA before this makes it to CPAN?
Working out if I want to add the patch to our build process or not...
On 24 Feb 2011, at 08:41, Torsten Förtsch wrote:
> On Thursday, February 24, 2011 09:29:23 Max Kanat-Alexander wrote:
>> On 02/23/2011 11:40 PM, Torsten Förtsch wrote:
>>> On
On 02/24/2011 12:41 AM, Torsten Förtsch wrote:
> Max, could you please check if the following patch does what you want and try
> it out in your environment?
Hey Torsten. Yes, I tested it and it works. Thank you so much! :-)
-Max
--
http://www.bugzillasource.com/
Competent, Frien
On Thursday, February 24, 2011 09:29:23 Max Kanat-Alexander wrote:
> On 02/23/2011 11:40 PM, Torsten Förtsch wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 24, 2011 07:45:29 Max Kanat-Alexander wrote:
> >> Hey Fred. So given the discussion that we've had on this, do you
> >> think that the next version of S
On 02/23/2011 11:40 PM, Torsten Förtsch wrote:
> On Thursday, February 24, 2011 07:45:29 Max Kanat-Alexander wrote:
>> Hey Fred. So given the discussion that we've had on this, do you think
>> that the next version of SizeLimit could change its Linux behavior to
>> return the more appropriate
On Thursday, February 24, 2011 07:45:29 Max Kanat-Alexander wrote:
> Hey Fred. So given the discussion that we've had on this, do you think
> that the next version of SizeLimit could change its Linux behavior to
> return the more appropriate rss size?
yes
Torsten Förtsch
--
Need professio
Hey Fred. So given the discussion that we've had on this, do you think
that the next version of SizeLimit could change its Linux behavior to
return the more appropriate rss size?
-Max
--
http://www.bugzillasource.com/
Competent, Friendly Bugzilla, Perl, and IT Services
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.
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
24 matches
Mail list logo