[Mongrel] Mongrel using way more memory on production than staging. Any ideas why?

Wayne E. Seguin wayneeseguin at gmail.com
Tue Oct 2 12:44:12 EDT 2007


On 10/2/07, Chris T <ctmailinglists at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Johan Sørensen wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 2, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Chris T wrote:
> >
> >> The staging server (also split with Xen) is set up pretty much
> >> identically
> >>
> >> On the production box, pretty much immediately (and I'm talking about
> >> within one or two requests), the mongrels climb up to about 150-160MB.
> >> One the staging server, even when I'm hammering it with a benchmarking
> >> suite (have tried with httperf, and bench and crawl) the mongrels sit
> >> comfortably at about 60MB each.
> >
> > Same box, hardware+kernel wise (32 vs 64 bit)? Libraries built the
> > same way?
> >
> > JS
> >
> >
> No, the production box is Athlon64 X2 3800, the staging one i386
> (actually a Pentium 4 I had lying around). However the ruby libraries
> were built the same way:
>
> sudo apt-get install ruby1.8 libzlib-ruby rdoc irb ruby1.8-dev
> libopenssl-ruby1.8
>
> On production:
> #ruby -v
> ruby 1.8.5 (2006-08-25) [x86_64-linux]
>
> On staging:
> #ruby -v
> ruby 1.8.5 (2006-08-25) [i486-linux]
>

I have not personally encountered this issue, however I also do not use
apt-get to install anything in the Ruby application stack. I compile
everything by hand. I'd recommend trying that next (compile-install Ruby and
RubyGems) on the production server.

Most production servers I work with are also 64 bit Linux boxes and as I
said, I compile everything and haven't seen this issue.

I hope that this helps,

  ~Wayne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/attachments/20071002/1dbe9356/attachment.html 


More information about the Mongrel-users mailing list