[typo] [FATAL] failed to allocate memory

Piers Cawley pdcawley at bofh.org.uk
Tue Aug 15 12:37:22 EDT 2006


"Scott Laird" <scott at sigkill.org> writes:

> On 8/15/06, Scott Laird <scott at sigkill.org> wrote:
>> On 8/15/06, Josh Knowles <joshknowles at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 8/15/06, Josh Knowles <joshknowles at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > I thought it might be something like this but was given no log message
>> > indicating that my process was being killed.  Thanks for the link and the
>> > shove in the right direction!
>> >
>> > So even with the removal of the majority of the components my two processes
>> > are still hovering around 42-48meg, is this normal?
>> >
>> > Josh
>>
>> That's still higher then I'd like to see, but it's within the range
>> that people have reported.
>
> ...and having said that, I just checked mine, and I'm seeing 56-62 MB
> after two days.  And, more annoying, it's racked up about 9 hours of
> CPU time along the way.  Admittedly, this is a slow box (Athlon 700
> Mhz), and my blog is fairly busy.
>
> I'm not focusing on doing a lot of speed or memory improvements with
> 4.0 right now.  I'm going to release 4.0.3 with a couple more bug
> fixes soon, but after that I'm going to start concentrating on Typo
> 4.1.  One of the big goals for 4.1 is performance; if I find anything
> big and obvious, then I'll back-port the change to 4.0, but I don't
> want to experiment with 4.0--that's what 4.1 is for.

I wonder how much affect the new regime of including more things has
had on memory usage? In theory we could be far more particular about
when we fetch stuff, but then we end up paying with more load on the
database server. It's all about the trade offs I'm afraid.

-- 
Piers Cawley <pdcawley at bofh.org.uk>
http://www.bofh.org.uk/


More information about the Typo-list mailing list