|
Home > Archive > AOL Webserver > December 2006 > zippy2 Build Problem for AOLserver 4.0.x
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
zippy2 Build Problem for AOLserver 4.0.x
|
|
| Nathan Folkman 2006-12-08, 7:11 pm |
| Try the following as a replacement for the current Makefile:
CLEAN = clean-it
INSTALL = install-it
LIB = zippy2
LIBOBJS = tclThreadAlloc.o
CFLAGS += -I$(TCL)/generic
include $(AOLSERVER)/include/Makefile.module
$(LIB): $(OBJS)
$(LDLIB) $(LDFLAGS) -o $(LIB) $(LIBOBJS)
$(CLEAN):
$(RM) $(LIBOBJS) $(LIB)
$(INSTALL): $(BUILD)
$(INST) -d $(INSTLIB) -e $(LIB)
You'll need to set "TCL" to point to the Tcl source directory.
One other option, and something you'd have to do if on a Mac, is to simply
replace the tclThreadAlloc.c file in your Tcl source tree with the one
provided here, rebuild Tcl, then build the alloccmd stuff (make -f
Makefile.cmd).
Also curious as to what motivated you to look into this in the first place.
Are you experiencing memory issues?
Hope that helps!
- n
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <listserv@listserv.aol.com> with the
body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
| |
| Agnieszka Kukałowicz 2006-12-11, 7:11 am |
| Hi,
> Try the following as a replacement for the current Makefile:
>
> CLEAN=A0=A0 =3D clean-it
> INSTALL =3D install-it
> LIB=A0=A0=A0=A0 =3D zippy2
> LIBOBJS =3D tclThreadAlloc.o
> CFLAGS=A0 +=3D -I$(TCL)/generic
> ...
It works. Thanks a lot.
> Also curious as to what motivated you to look into this in the first=20
> place. Are you experiencing memory issues? Are you experiencing memory
> issues?
Yes, My production server uses a lot of memory (almost 2GB after one day
running). First, I thought it was because of some kind of bad code in
our
application. But I made a lot of tests and statistics and I did notice
nothing. The application is very stable, there is no leak of memory. My
conclusion was it was due to memory alloction in AOLserver and articles
in=20
the Internet confirmed that. Now I'm testing AOLserver with Hoard and I
need to say it looks very nice. The memory usage decreased about 20% -
40% depending on server parameters.=20
I would also like to see how zippy2 works and compare it with hoard.
I will let you know about results of my experiment.
Cheers,
Agnieszka=20
| |
| Nathan Folkman 2006-12-11, 1:11 pm |
| Glad it worked. :-)
The Tcl threaded allocator, which is derived from the original AOLserver
"zippy" allocator, is optimized solely for lock avoidance, and this comes at
the cost of memory foot print. In fact, there's no garbage collection for
smaller allocations. Instead, memory moves between the shared and per-thread
pools.
There are a couple of additional things you could try which may also help.
Make sure you configure your connection threads such that they eventually
exit. I believe by default they stick around forever and get re-used. This
can be a good thing, but depending on the max number of connection threads
you have configured, you may tying up a bunch of memory in the per-thread
pool. When connection threads exit, the memory from the per-thread pool is
returned to the shared pool.
Another technique which has worked well is to move memory intensive tasks
into the nsproxy. The nsproxy is a single-threaded tclsh which uses system
malloc() and free(), and which will also return memory to the system on
exit.
We played around with various options in the new "zippy2" allocator, but
never saw any major improvements, at least for the types of systems we ran
at AOL.
If you have time, you may want to try out Google's tcmalloc, as its being
getting a lot of positive feedback, and is supposed to be optimized for
threaded applications.
On 12/11/06, Agnieszka Kukałowicz <qqlka@nask.pl> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> It works. Thanks a lot.
>
>
>
> Yes, My production server uses a lot of memory (almost 2GB after one day
> running). First, I thought it was because of some kind of bad code in
> our
> application. But I made a lot of tests and statistics and I did notice
> nothing. The application is very stable, there is no leak of memory. My
> conclusion was it was due to memory alloction in AOLserver and articles
> in
> the Internet confirmed that. Now I'm testing AOLserver with Hoard and I
> need to say it looks very nice. The memory usage decreased about 20% -
> 40% depending on server parameters.
> I would also like to see how zippy2 works and compare it with hoard.
> I will let you know about results of my experiment.
>
> Cheers,
> Agnieszka
>
>
> --
> AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
>
> To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <
> listserv@listserv.aol.com> with the
> body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the
> Subject: field of your email blank.
>
--
Nathan Folkman
nathan.folkman@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|