[typo] [FATAL] failed to allocate memory
steve.longdo at gmail.com
Tue Aug 15 13:50:17 EDT 2006
On TextDrive the profiling code has enough overhead it kills the thread
sometimes. I have noticed that the number of Blog objects seems to stack up
over time though. I've seen as many 22 instantiated at the same time.
Considering that I only have one Blog that seems kind of high.
Granted they don't take up much memory themselves, but I wonder if they hold
on to arrays of Content objects and prevent them from being garbage
collected. I am still digging into it.
On 8/15/06, Piers Cawley <pdcawley at bofh.org.uk> wrote:
> "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
> >> > indicating that my process was being killed. Thanks for the link and
> >> > shove in the right direction!
> >> >
> >> > So even with the removal of the majority of the components my two
> >> > 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>
> Typo-list mailing list
> Typo-list at rubyforge.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Typo-list