On 3 May 2008, at 05:27, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
> On 2 May 2008, at 18:17, Stefan de Konink wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 May 2008, Jack wrote:
>>
>>> The test also seems to have revealed a memory
leak. When the test
>>> was
>>> done, cherokee process took about 100MB memory
(it started with
>>> 2.5MB.) I wasn't sure if the leak was from
static requests or
>>> dynamic
>>> requests. So I re-did 10,000 request with a
static page, and didn't
>>> observe memory leak. In the dynamic page tests,
memory usage kept
>>> growing, at the speed of around 100 bytes per
request. When the load
>>> stopped, the memory didn't get released.
>>
>> VERY GOOD! I'm happy you found it! I think this
accounts for my
>> previous
>> problems too.
>>
>>> Not sure if this has also been observed on
Linux?
>>
>> Yes, under Linux this was also found. I only don't
know if it was a
>> memoryleak resulting in high load (due to swapping)
or something
>> else.
>
> This is the first notice I have got about this.. I'm
checking it
> right away.
Could you please guys give more details on how to reproduce
it? I have
tried to reproduce this but I haven't succeeded. The only
leak I have
found was a 16 bytes long buffer that was unreferred during
the server
initialization.
--
Greetings, alo.
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee cherokee-project.com
http://cherokee-project.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
o/cherokee
|
