Memory constantly increasing in Rails app - ruby-on-rails

I recently launched a new Ruby on Rails application that worked well in development mode. After the launch I have been experiencing the memory being used is constantly increasing:
UPDATED: When this screen dump (the one below) from New Relic was taken. I have scheduled a web dyno restart every hour (one out of two web dynos). Thus, it does not reach the 500Mb-crash level and it actually gets a bit of a sig saw pattern. The problem is not at all resolved by this though, only some of the symptoms. As you can see the morning is not so busy but the afternoon is more busy. I made an upload at 11.30 for a small detail, it could not have affected the problem even though it appears as such in the stats.
It could be noted as well that it is the MIN memory that keeps on increasing even though the graph shows AVG memory. Even when the graph seems to go down temporarily in the graph, the min memory stays the same or increases. The MIN memory never decreases!
The app would (without dyno restarts) increase in memory until it reached the maximum level at Heroku and the app crashes with execution expired-types of errors.
I am not a great programmer but I have made a few apps before without having this type of problem.
Troubleshooting performed
A. I thought the problem would lie within the before_filter in the application_controller (Will variables in application controller cause a memory leak in Rails?) but that wasn't the problem.
B. I installed oink but it does not give any results (at all). It creates an oink.log but does not give any results when I run "heroku run oink -m log/oink.log", no matter what threshold.
C. I tried bleak_house but it was deprecated and could not be installed
D. I have googled and read most articles in the topic but I am none the wiser.
E. I would love to test memprof but I can't install it (I have Ruby 1.9x and don't really know how to downgrade it to 1.8x)
My questions:
Q1. What I really would love to know is the name(s) of the variable(s) that are increasing for each request, or at least which controller is using the most memory.
Q2. Will a controller as the below code increase in memory?
related_feed_categories = []
#gift.tags.each do |tag|
tag.category_connections.each do |cc|
related_feed_categories << cc.category_from_feed
end
end
(sorry, SO won't re-format the code to be easily readable for some reason).
Do I need to "kill off" related_feed_categories with "related_feed_categories = nil" afterwards or does the Garbage Collector handle that?
Q3. What would be my major things to look for? Right now I can't narrow it down AT ALL. I don't know which part of the code to look deeper into, and I don't really know what to look for.
Q4. In case I really cannot solve the problem. Are there any online consulting service where I can send my code and get them to find the problem?
Thanks!
UPDATED. After receiving comments it could have to do with sessions. This is a part of the code that I guess could be bad:
# Create sessions for last generation
friend_data_arr = [#generator.age, #generator.price_low, #generator.price_high]
friend_positive_tags_arr = []
friend_negative_tags_arr = []
friend_positive_tags_arr << #positive_tags
friend_negative_tags_arr << #negative_tags
session["last_generator"] = [friend_data_arr, friend_positive_tags_arr, friend_negative_tags_arr]
# Clean variables
friend_data_arr = nil
friend_positive_tags_arr = nil
friend_negative_tags_arr = nil
it is used in the generator#show controller. When some gifts have been generated through my gift-generating-engine I save the input in a session (in case they want to use that info in a later stage). I never kill or expire these sessions so in case this could cause memory increase.
Updated again: I removed this piece of code but the memory still increases, so I guess this part is not it but similar code might causing the error?

That's unlikely our related_feed_categories provoke this.
Are you using a lot of files ?
How long do you keep sessions datas ? Looks like you have an e-commerce site, are you keeping objects in sessions ?
Basically, i think it is files, or session, or an increase in temporary datas flushed when the server crash(memcache ?).
In the middle of the night, i guess that ou have fewer customer. Can you post the same memory chart, in peak hours ?
It may be related to this problem : Memory grows indefinitely in an empty Rails app
UPDATE :
Rails don't store all the datas on client side. I don't remember the default store, bu unless you choose the cookie::store, rails send only datas like session_id.
They are few guidelines about sessions, the ActiveRecord::SessionStore seem to be the best choice for performance purpose. And you shouldn't keep large objects nor secrets datas in sessions. More on session here : http://guides.rubyonrails.org/security.html#what-are-sessions
In the 2.9 part, you have an explanation to destroy sessions, unused for a certain time.
Instead of storing objects in sessions, i suggest you store the url giving the search results. You may even store it in database, offering the possibility to save few research to your customer, and/or by default load the last used.
But at these stage we are still, not totally sure that sessions are the culprits. In order to be sure, you may try on a test server, to stress test your application, with expiring sessions. So basically, you create a large number of sessions, and maybe 20 min later rails has to suppress them. If you find any difference in memory consumption, it will narrow things.
First case : memory drop significantly when sessions expires, you know that's is session related.
Second case : The memory increase at a faster rate, but don't drop when sessions expires, you know that it is user related, but not session related.
Third case : nothing change(memory increase at usual), so you know it do not depend on the number of user. But i don't know what could cause this.
When i said stress tests, i mean a significant number of sessions, not really a stress test. The number of sessions you need, depends on your average numbers of users. If you had 50 users, before your app crashed, 20 -30 sessions may be sginificant. So if you had them by hand, configure a higher expire time limit. We are just looking for differences in memory comsuption.
Update 2 :
So this is most likely a memory leak. So use object space, it has a count_objects method, which will display all the objets currently used. It should narrow things. Use it when memory have already increased a lot.
Otherwise, you have bleak_house, a gem able to find memory leaks, still ruby tools for memory leaks are not as efficient as java ones, but it's worth a try.
Github : https://github.com/evan/bleak_house
Update 3 :
This may be an explanation, this is not really memory leak, but it grows memory :
http://www.tricksonrails.com/2010/06/avoid-memory-leaks-in-ruby-rails-code-and-protect-against-denial-of-service/
In short, symbols are keep in memory until your restart ruby. So if symbols are created with random name, memory will grow, until your app crash. This don't happen with Strings, the are GCed.
Bit old, but valid for ruby 1.9.x Try this : Symbol.all_symbols.size
Update 4:
So, your symbols are probably the memory leak. Now we still have to find where it occurs. Use Symbol.all_symbols. It gives you the list. I guess you may store this somewhere, and make a diff with the new array, in order to see what was added.
It may be i18n, or it may be something else generating in an implicit way like i18n. But anyway, this is probably generating symbols with random data in the name. And then these symbols are never used again.

Assuming category_from_feed returns a string (or a symbol perhaps), a magnitude of 300MB increase is quite unlikely. You can roughly arrive at this by profiling this:
4_000_000.times {related_feed_categories << "Loooooooooooooong string" }
This snippet would shoot the memory usage up by about 110MB.
I'd look at DB connections or methods that read a file and then don't close it. I can see that it's related to feeds which probably means you might be using XML. That can be a starting point too.
Posting this as answer because this looks bad in comments :/

Related

any downsides to writing the same file 1000's of times in iOS?

I'm considering overwriting the same small file 1,000's - 100,000's of times in an iOS app. Are there any downsides to this, given that flash memory is rated for 1000's of writes (but not, say, 100,000's)?
Will the system file cache save me if I stick to standard FileHandle operations? (without me having to implement my own such cache)
This has been addressed before: Reading/Writing to/from iPhone's Documents folder performance
Any new insights?
Update in response to some comments below: in general I agree with you that sometimes examining the choice of solution is more critical than helping with the proposed solution itself.
However, for this case, I feel the question is legit. Basically, it applies to any program where there is a small amount of very volatile data that needs to be persisted often: say, a position in a game, or a stock tick, or some counter, or the last key pressed, or something like that. It needs to be reliably read after process restart, so the app can pick up where it left off, hence the question:
Can I use the iOS file system for that? I know I can't write 10,000's of times to actual flash memory - that would burn it out. But will file system operations solve this for me, through some form of caching? Or do I need to do that myself, 'by hand'?
I sort of assume 'yes' (file system will solve) - otherwise other apps that do this (there must be some) would be burning out phones all the time! But: hard to know for sure...
Update again: asked this question on apple forums:
https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/116740
Still no clear answer. Some answers are: just cache it yourself to avoid any such potential problems (and there can be: a file write can fail, and increasing the frequency increases the probability of failure in weird ways). Another is: iOS logs so much stuff, there's no way I can write more frequently than that, and that's fine, so no worries... I guess I'll leave this question open for now.

How do I get a more detailed transaction trace with the Ruby New Relic agent

I'm running a rails 3.0 application on Heroku and using the New Relic addon/service.
I have been looking at the transaction traces feature (available in the pro version) to understand a little more about the performance characteristics of the application. However, a significant portion of time (30-50%) is "uninstrumented time". After making a few stabs by putting method_tracers in some places and going through the reasonably slow cycle to test whether I get more info, I'm feeling this is going nowhere fast.
It seems in the PHP new relic agent they have a great feature to get very detailed traces without needing to guess where to put method tracers: http://newrelic.com/docs/php/php-agent-faq#top100
Is there anything similar to this for ruby?
Note: I'm already using rpm_contrib to get some more info and have garbage collection stats enabled. Also, this is not about fixing a performance problem, just understanding how to better use the performance tools available and scratch a niggling itch about that uninstrumented time.
There isn't currently anything similar for Ruby. I'll mention it to the Ruby engineer when I get a chance. My guess is unless a lot of requests come in for it, it won't be at the top of the list for a while, though. In the meantime, you can use the method tracers to figure out the uninstrumented time.
Hope that helps.
Method tracers can work well, but if you have a lot of code in your controller, try a binary search using trace_execution_scoped, which records the time spent in a block of code:
http://newrelic.github.com/rpm/NewRelic/Agent/MethodTracer/InstanceMethods/TraceExecutionScoped.html#method-i-trace_execution_scoped
Add a couple calls to this, give each metric a sensible name like "Custom/MySlowControllerAction/block0" (first argument to trace_execution_scoped), and repeat.
The metrics you name will show up not just in Transaction Traces, but also in the Performance Breakdown for the controller action under the Web Transactions tab, so you'll see average time in that block of code across all requests, not just the slow ones.

Heroku database performance experience needed?

We are experiencing some serious scaling challenges for our intelligent search engine/aggregator. Our database holds around 200k objects. From profiling and newrelic it seems most of our troubles may come from the database. We are using the smallest dedicated database Heroku provide (Ronin).
We have been looking into indexing and caching. So far we managed to solve our problems by reducing database calls and caching content intelligently, but now even this seems to reach an end. We are constantly asking ourselves if our code/configuration is good enough or if we are simply not using enough "hardware".
We suspect that the database solution we buy from Heroku may be performing insufficiently. For example, just doing a simple count (no joins, no nothing) on the 200k items takes around 250ms. This seems like a long time, even though postgres is known for its bad performance on counts?
We have also started to use geolocation lookups based on latitude/longitude. Both columns are indexed floats. Doing a distance calculation involves pretty complicated math, but we are using the very well recommended geocoder gem that is suspected to run very optimized queries. Even geocoder still takes 4-10 seconds to perform a lookup on, say, 40.000 objects, returning only a limit of the first nearest 10. This again sounds like a long time, and all the experienced people we consult says that it sound very odd, again hinting at the database performance.
So basically we wonder: What can we expect from the database? Might there be a problem? And what can we expect if we decide to upgrade?
An additional question I have is: I read here that we can improve performance by loading the entire database into memory. Are we supposed to configure this ourselves and if so how?
UPDATE ON THE LAST QUESTION:
I got this from the helpful people at Heroku support:
"What this means is having enough memory (a large enough dedicated
database) to store your hot data set in memory. This isn't something
you have to do manually, Postgres is configured automatically use all
available memory on our dedicated databases.
I took a look at your database and it looks like you're currently
using about 1.25 GB of RAM, so you haven't maxed your memory usage
yet."
UPDATE ON THE NUMBERS AND FIGURES
Okay so now I've had time to look into the numbers and figures, and I'll try to answer the questions below as follows:
First of all, the db consists of around 29 tables with a lot of relations. But in reality most queries are done on a single table (some additional resources are joined in, to provide all needed information for the views).
The table has 130 columns.
Currently it holds around 200k records but only 70k are active - hence all indexes are made as partial-indexes on this "state".
All columns we search are indexed correctly and none is of text-type, and many are just booleans.
Answers to questions:
Hmm the baseline performance it's kind of hard to tell, we have sooo many different selects. The time it takes varies typically from 90ms to 250ms selecting a limit of 20 rows. We have a LOT of counts on the same table all varying from 250ms to 800ms.
Hmm well, that's hard to say cause they wont give it a shot.
We have around 8-10 users/clients running requests at the same time.
Our query load: In new relic's database reports it says this about the last 24 hours: throughput: 9.0 cpm, total time: 0.234 s, avg time: 25.9 ms
Yes we have examined the query plans of our long-running queries. The count queries are especially slow, often over 500ms for a pretty simple count on the 70k records done on indexed columns with a result around 300
I've tuned a few Rails apps hosted on Heroku, and also hosted on other platforms, and usually the problems fall into a few basic categories:
Doing too much in ruby that could be done at the db level (sorting, filtering, join data, etc)
Slow queries
Inefficient use of indexes (not enough, or too many)
Trying too hard to do it all in the db (this is not as common in rails, but does happen)
Not optimizing cacheable data
Not effectively using background processing
Right now its hard to help you because your question doesn't contain any specifics. I think you'll get a better response if you pinpoint the biggest issue you need help with and then ask.
Some info that will help us help you:
What is the average response time of your actions? (from new relic, request-log-analyzer, logs)
What is the slowest request that you want help with?
What are the queries and code in that request?
Is the site's performance different when you run it locally vs. heroku?
In the end I think you'll find that it is not an issue specific to Heroku, and if you had your app deployed on amazon, engineyard, etc you'd have the same performance. The good news is I think that your problems are common, and shouldn't be too hard to fix once you've done some benchmarking and profiling.
-John McCaffrey
We are constantly asking...
...this seems a lot...
...that is suspected...
...What can we expect...
Good news! You can put and end to seeming, suspecting wondering and expecting through the magic of measurement!!!
Seriously though, you've not mentioned any of the basic points you'd need to get a useful answer:
What's the baseline performance of the DB running a sequential scan and single-row index fetches? You say Heroku say your DB fits in RAM, so you shouldn't see disk I/O issues when you measure.
Does this performance match whatver Heroku say it should be?
How many concurrent clients?
What's your query load - what queries and how often?
Have you checked the query plans for any of your suspiciously long-running queries?
Once you've got this sort of information, maybe someone can say something useful. As it stands anything you read here is just guesswork.
First: you should check your postgres configuration. (show all from within psql or another client, or just look at postgres.conf in the data directory) The parameter with the largest impact on performance is effective_cache_size, which should be set to about (total_physical_ram - memory_in_use_by_kernel_and_all_processes). For a 4GB machine, this often is around 3GB (4-1). (this is very course tuning, but will give the best results for a first step)
Second: why do you want all the counts? Better use a typical query: just ask for what is needed, not what is available. (reason: there is no possible optimisation for a COUNT(*): eiither the whole table, or a whole index needs to be scanned)
Third: start gathering and analysing some queryplans (for typical queries that perform badly). You can get a query plan by putting EXPLAIN ANALYZE before the actual query. (another way is to increase the logging level, and obtain them from the logfile) A bad queryplan can point you at missing statistics or indexes, or even at bad data-modelling.
Newrelic monitoring can be included as an add-on for heroku (http://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/newrelic). At the very least this should give you a lot of insight into what is happening behind the scenes, and may help you pinpoint some issues.

When/what to cache in Rails 3

Caching is something that I kind of ignored for a long time, as projects that I worked on were on local intranets with very little activity. I'm working on a much larger Rails 3 personal project now, and I'm trying to work out what and when I should cache things.
How do people generally determine this?
If I know a site is going to be relatively low-activity, should I just cache every single page?
If I have a page that calls several partials, is it better to do fragment caching in those partials, or page caching on those partials?
The Ruby on Rails guides did a fine job of explaining how caching in Rails 3 works, but I'm having trouble understanding the decision-making process associated with it.
Don't ever cache for the sake of it, cache because there's a need (with the exception of something like the homepage, which you know is going to be super popular.) Launch the site, and either parse your logs or use something like NewRelic to see what's slow. From there, you can work out what's worth caching.
Generally though, if something takes 500ms to complete, you should cache, and if it's over 1 second, you're probably doing too much in the request, and you should farm whatever you're doing to a background process…for example, fetching a Twitter feed, or manipulating images.
EDIT: See apneadiving's answer too, he links to some great screencasts (albeit based on Rails 2, but the theory is the same.)
You'll want to think about caching several kinds of things:
Requests that are hit a lot, and seldom change
Requests that are "expensive" to draw, lots of database calls, etc. Also hopefully these seldom change.
The other side of caching that shouldn't go without mention, is expiration. Its also often the harder part. You have to know when a cache is no longer good, and clear it out so fresh content will be generated. Sweepers, or Observers, depending on how you implement your cache can help you with this. You could also do it just based on a time value, allow caches to have a max-age and clear them after that no matter what.
As for fragment vs full page caching, think of it in terms of how often those parts are updated. If 3 partials of a page are never updated, and one is, maybe you want to cache those 3, and allow that 1 to be fetched live for so you can have up to the second accuracy. Or if the different partials of a page should have different caching rules: maybe a "timeline" section is cached, but has a cache-age of 1 minute. While the "friends" partial is cached for 12 hours.
Hope this helps!
If the site is relatively low activity you shouldn't cache any page. You cache because of performance problems, and performance problems come about because you have too much data to query, too many users, or worse, both of those situations at the same time.
Before you even think about caching, the first thing you do is look through your application for the requests that are taking up the most time. Not the slowest requests, but the requests your application spends the most aggregate time performing. That is if you have a request A that runs 10 times at 1500ms and request B that runs 5000 times at 250ms you work on optimizing B first.
It's actually pretty easy to grep through your production.log and extract rendering times and URLs to combine them into a simple report. You can even do that in real-time if you want.
Once you've identified a problematic request, you go about picking apart what it's doing to service the request. The first thing is to look for any queries that can be combined by using eager loading or by looking ahead a bit more to anticipate what you'll need. The next thing is to ensure you're not loading data that isn't used.
So many times you'll see code to list users and it's loading 50KB per person of biographical data, their Facebook and Twitter handles, literally everything about them, and all you use is their name.
Fetch as little as you need, and fetch it in the most efficient way you can. Use connection.select_rows when you don't need models.
The next step is to look at what kind of queries you're running, and how they're under-performing. Ensure your indexes are all set properly and are being used. Check that you're not doing complicated JOIN operations that could be resolved by a bit of tactical de-normalization.
Have a look at what data you are storing in your application, and try and find things that can be removed from your production database and warehoused somewhere else. Cycle your data out regularly when it's no longer relevant, preserve it in a separate database if you need to.
Then go over and have a look at how your database server is tuned. Does it have sufficiently large buffers? Is it on hardware that could be upgraded with more memory at a nominal cost? Too many people are running a completely un-tuned database server and with a few simple settings they can get ten-fold performance increases.
If, and only if, you still have a performance problem at this point then you might want to consider caching.
You know why you don't cache first? It's because once you cache something, that cached data is immediately stale. If parts of your application use this data under the assumption it's always up to date, you will have problems. If you don't expire this cache when the data does change, you will have problems. If you cache the data and never use it again, you're just clogging up your cache and you will have problems. Basically you'll have lots of problems when you use caching, so it's often a last resort.

Ruby on Rails: what performance can I realistically aim for?

I've been building an application in Ruby on Rails 3, and I'm starting to worry about performance optimization. Now I hope that my question is not too subjective for this site, but I'm interested in facts, not a discussion, so here goes:
While I'm trying to get my views to render faster, there is one thing I simply do not know: What should I aim for? Given a reasonably complex page, what load time is realistic? I simply don't have any reference.
What I'm typically seeing for my application is something like this:
Completed 200 OK in 397ms (Views: 341.1ms | ActiveRecord: 17.7ms)
This is on my production server, running Apache/Passenger.
I am the only one (!) making requests on that server, it's a root server (not virtual), running Ubuntu, AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+, 4 GB RAM
That is, for most of my more complicated actions (not unusually complicated, just assume it's a paginated listing of 20 objects with 5 computed properties each or something) the ActiveRecord times are almost always fine (<20-30ms), but the "views" number is usually >200 ms.
Now, to my question: When I started using RoR my expectation (maybe unrealistic) was that for most consumer-oriented applications with average complexity (let's say something like Facebook, Twitter, etc. WITHOUT the millions of users) I would get < 20 ms load times as long as I was the only one making requests, and that for a single server load times would only approach 100ms or more if there were lots of people making requests at the same time.
My expectation was also that database requests would be the major bottleneck, since all the rest is just relatively simple computations without any real complexity. I thought that it might take 10ms to get all the objects from the database, and then maybe another 5 ms to run the controller code, build the view, etc.
Since I've never been in charge of any production app, I don't know if this expectation was in any way realistic. So I would like somebody with experience point out to me what my realistic expectation should be.
(e.g. "pretty much everything but really nasty stuff should render in 50 ms tops as long as you are the only one making requests")
or ("actually 300 ms is not unusual for RoR applications, even if you're the only user")
or ("Are you kidding? I get < 10 ms with 150 concurrent requests on a smaller server than yours. There must be something very wrong with your app)
Again, I hope this is not too subjective, but I'm not really interested in an opinion of whether or not RoR is fast, I want facts from someone with more experience on what numbers are average and to be expected from production RoR applications. Otherwise I simply have no clue at what point I should stop optimizing and just accept that I'll never get 10 ms load times.
Gosh, I'm not sure I'm the one to answer this, but since I've been around these waters enough times, I may have an incomplete idea of things to look at.
First of all, the response times is pretty subjective. Meaning, it's good enough if it's good enough for you. From my experience, pages resembling your description seem to take about as much time as what you're describing. So, you're not orders of magnitude off in either direction.
If you want to optimize your view renders with your current architecture, your next step is here, I think. Greg Pollack does a great job breaking this stuff down for you and will make sure you're on track. You'll be sure to get your assets cached and your stack fine-tuned. That'll be your most practical general advice.
If you're willing to look at your deployment architecture, Ilya Grigorik raises some great questions in this article and then answers them with Goliath. If your bottlenecks are speeding up your server-client round trip, that's probably the approach to do.
I try to pay attention to anything Aaron Patterson says about performance, like in this talk. He's going to teach general optimization ideas, most of them for your server-side code. You may catch a few things that relate to your current problem.
I was pulled aside by a former co-worker at MWRC this year and told that I'm absolutely nuts if I'm not building with JRuby these days. It's a bit of a commitment, and I've resisted making major changes like that until I have truly painful response times, which I don't, and it doesn't sound like you're having either. However, JRuby's a very mainstream thing to do now, and you and I will likely embrace this for some projects at some point in the future.
So, bottom line, I think you're in the realm of a spry app as you are. I think I'd work down these resources in the order I presented them.
Not knowing what you're rendering, it's hard to comment on the performance, but I would venture to say that 200ms is very high. Don't forget that the debug information in your logs can be a little misleading: if you're querying your DB or some external resource from within a view, as opposed to preloading that data in your controller, then that time will be attributed to view rendering.
Common culprits: you load Model X in your model, but then access an association in your view which triggers a bunch of selects under the hood. The time to fetch Model x is low, but the associated records will show up as "view time".
In other words, dig into the logs and if its actually your view code, then bring up a profiler.
I'm getting view times < 20ms on a $20/month linode server. That's well-optimized code, for a request of medium complexity, running on JRuby. You haven't hit Rails' performance limits by any means. Time to use a profiler and see what's taking so long.
I don't think your 200 ms view time is abnormal, or even high in any way.
However, you have room for improvement. You say " (not unusually complicated, just assume it's a paginated listing of 20 objects with 5 computed properties each or something)"
To me, that's 100 operations that could be pre-calculated, and would speed up your view rendering time.
Finally -- Rendering time doesn't usually have a direct correlation to number of users. Under most deployments, as a request comes in, it is handled by a process and then responded to. Other requests wait until the first is completed before they are processed.
Use static content where possible. Outside of that, use caching where possible, at the highest possible level, preferably at the page level. When content can't be cached, try to get -something- static or cacheable back to the user quickly. You might, for instance, serve up a static page with the basic layout, and an animated busy-image where the content belongs, and then use JavaScript to load the dynamic content.

Resources