I believe that you can't force a running Memcached instance to de-allocate memory, short of terminating that Memcached instance (and freeing all of the memory it held). Does anyone know of a definitive piece of documentation, or even a mailing list or blog posting from a reliable source, that can confirm or deny this impression?
As I understand it, a Memcached process initially allocates a chunk of memory (the exact initial allocation size is configurable), and then monotonically increases its memory utilization over its lifetime, limited by the daemon's maximum memory allocation size (also configurable). At no point does the Memcached daemon ever free any memory, regardless of whether the daemon has any ongoing need for the memory it holds.
I know that this question might sound a little whiny, with a tone of "I DEMAND that open source project X support my specific need!" That's not it, at all--I'm purely interested in the exact technical answer, here, and I swear I'm not harshing on Memcached. For the curious, this question came out of a discussion about possible methods for gracefully juggling multiple Memcached instances on a single server, given an application where the cost of a cache flush can be quite high.
However, I'd appreciate it if you save your application suggestions/advice for a different question (re-architecting my application, using a different caching implementation, etc.). I do appreciate a good brainstorm, but I think this question will be most valuable if it stays focused on the technical specifics of how Memcached does and does not work. If you don't have the answer to this specific question, there is probably still value in what you have to say, but I'd guess that there's a different, better place to post the more speculative comments/suggestions/advice.
This is probably the hardest problem we have to solve for memcached currently (well, a variation of it, anyway).
Freeing a chunk of memory requires us to know that a) nothing within the chunk is in use and b) nothing will start using it while we're in the process of purging it for reuse/freeing. I've heard some really good ideas for how we might solve our slab rebalancing problems which is basically the same, except we're not trying to free the memory, but to give it to something else (a common problem in a few large installations).
Also, whether free actually reduces the RSS of your process is implementation dependent. In many cases, a malloc/fill/free will leave the memory mapped in (unless your allocator uses mmap instead of sbrk).
I'm pretty sure this isn't possible with memcached. I don't see any technical reason why it couldn't be implemented though. Lock cache operations, expire enough keys to reach the desired size, update the size, unlock. (I'm sure there's nicer ways to avoid blocking the server during that time.)
The standard and default mechanism of memory management in memcached is slab allocator. It means that memory is being allocated for the process and never released to the operating system. Basically, when memory is no longer used to store some data, it is being held by the process in order to be reused later, when needed. However, the operating system releases memory allocated by the process when it is finished. That is why memory is being released when you kill/stop the memcached.
There is a compile-time option in memcached to enable malloc/free mechanism. So that when free() is called, memory might be released to operating system (this depends on C standard library implementation). But doing so might hurt a good fragmentation and performance.
Please read more about the issue here:
Why not use malloc/free
Memcached memory management
Related
I'm using Puma server and DelayedJob.
It seems that the memory taken by each job isn't released and I slowly get a bloat causing me to restart my dyno (Heroku).
Any reason why the dyno won't return to the same memory usage figure before the job was performed?
Any way to force releasing it? I tried calling GC but it doesn't seem to help.
You can have one of the following problems. Or actually all of them:
Number 1. This is not an actual problem, but a misconception about how Ruby releases memory to operating system. Short answer: it doesn't. Long answer: Ruby manages an internal list of free objects. Whenever your program needs to allocate new objects, it will get those objects from this free list. If there are no more objects there, Ruby will allocate new memory from operating system. When objects are garbage collected they go back to the free list. So Ruby still have the allocated memory. To illustrate it better, imagine that your program is normally using 100 MB. When at some point program will allocate 1 GB, it will hold this memory until you restart it.
There are some good resource to learn more about it here and here.
What you should do is to increase your dyno size and monitor your memory usage over time. It should stabilize at some level. This will show you your normal memory usage.
Number 2. You can have an actual memory leak. It can be in your code or in some gem. Check out this repository, it contains information about well known memory leaks and other memory issues in popular gems. delayed_job is actually listed there.
Number 3. You may have unoptimized code that is using more memory than needed and you should try to investigate memory usage and try to decrease it. If you are processing large files, maybe you should do it in smaller batches etc.
Say for instance I write a program which allocates a bunch of large objects when it is initialized. Then the program runs for awhile, perhaps indefinitely, and when it's time to terminate, each of the large initialized objects are freed.
So my question is, will it take longer to manually deallocate each block of memory separately at the end of the program's life or would it be better to let the system unload the program and deallocate all of the virtual memory given to the program by the system at the same time.
Would it be safe and/or faster? Also, if it is safe, does the compiler do this when set to optimise anyway?
1) Not all systems will free a memory for you when application terminates. Of course most of the modern desktop systems will do this, so if you are going to run your program only on Linux or Mac(or Windows), you can leave the deallocation to the system.
2) Often it is needed to make some operations with the data on termination, not just to free the memory. So if you are going to develop such program design that makes it hard to deallocate objects at the end manually, then it can happen that later you will need to perform some code before exiting and you will face up with hard problem.
2') Sometimes even if you think that your program will need some objects all the way until dead, later you may want to make a library from you program or change a project to load and unload you big objects and the poor design of your program will make this hard or impossible.
3) Moreover, the program deallocation performance depends on the implementation of the allocator you are going to use in your program. The system deallocation depends on the system memory management and even for a single system there can be several implementations. So if you face with allocation/deallocation performance problems - you would like to develop better allocator rather then hope on the system.
4) So my opinion is: When you deallocate memory manually at the end - you are always on a right way. When you don't do this, perhaps you can get some ambiguous benefits in several cases, but likely you will just face with the problems sooner or later.
Well most OS will free the memory at exit if the program, but the bigger question is why would you want it to have to?
Is it faster? Hard to say with memory sometimes. I would guess not really and definitely not worth breaking good coding practices anyway.
Is it safe? Define safe... Will your OS crash? Probably not. Will your code be susceptible to memory leaks or other problems? Absolutely, it will. In fact you are basically telling it you want memory leaks.
Best practice is to always free your memory when you are done with it. With C and C++, every malloced or new block of memory should have a corresponding free or delete.
It is a bad idea to rely on the OS to free your memory because it not only makes your code look bad and makes it less portable, but if the program was ever integrated into another program, then you will likely be tracking down memory leaks for hours.
So, short answer, always do it manually.
Programs with a short maintenance life time are good candidates for memory deallocation by "exit() and let the kernel sort them out." However, if the program will last more than a few months you have to consider the maintenance burden.
For instance, consider that someone may realize that a subsequent stage is required in the program, and some of the data is not needed, or not needed in memory. They now have to go and find out how to deallocate the memory, properly removing stale references, etc.
I'm planning an application which will involve loading many pictures at one time and thus requires a large chunk of memory. For example, I might have 50 image objects created at once, taking a total of 1GB of RAM. But when the user goes to load 20 more pictures, I'd like to make sure that amount of memory is already reserved and ready.
Now this part might seem a little backwards from normal. Rather than specifying how much memory my application shall reserve, instead I need to specify how much memory to leave free for other applications, and adjust my application's memory periodically according to this specification. I must say I've never worked with reserving memory at all, and especially won't know how to leave this remaining available memory.
So for example, if the computer has 2048 MB of RAM, and the option is set to leave 50 MB free for other applications, and there is already 10MB of RAM being used by other apps, then it should reserve 2048-50-10 = 1988 MB for my app.
The trouble I foresee is suppose the user opens another application which requires 1GB. My app has to catch this and shrink its self.
Does this even sound like a feasible approach? Basically, I need to make sure there is as much memory reserved as possible at any given time, while leaving a decent amount available for other apps. Would it make a significant impact on performance if I do this, or not much at all? I might be loading and unloading images at rapid paces, and I don't want it to reserve/free this memory on demand, I want it to stay reserved.
+1 for Sertac's mentioning of how SQL Server rides the line of allocating memory it needs, but releasing memory when Windows complains.
Applications can receive Window's complaints by using the CreateMemoryResourceNotification:
hLowMemory := CreateMemoryResourceNotification(LowMemoryResourceNotification);
Applications can use memory resource notification events to scale the
memory usage as appropriate. If available memory is low, the
application can reduce its working set. If available memory is high,
the application can allocate more memory.
Any thread of the calling
process can specify the memory resource notification handle in a call
to the QueryMemoryResourceNotification function or one of the wait functions.
The state of the object is signaled when the specified
memory condition exists. This is a system-wide event, so all
applications receive notification when the object is signaled. Note
that there is a range of memory availability where neither the
LowMemoryResourceNotification or HighMemoryResourceNotification object
is signaled. In this case, applications should attempt to keep the
memory use constant.
But it's also worth mentioning that you might as well allocate memory that you need. Your operating system has a very sophisiticated set of algorithms to swap out the least used memory when memory pressure is high. You can take advantage of this by simply allocating all the memory that you need. When Windows starts to run low, it will find those pages of memory that you are using the least and swap them out to disk. (This is how a well-known reverse proxy works).
The only thing left is to decide if you want to free some images when Windows says it's running low on RAM. But if you're not using the memory, it is going to be swapped out to disk for you.
It's not realistic to account for other apps. Just ignore them. The system will page things in and out as needed. If you really wanted to do this you'd have to dynamically adapt to other processes as they start and finish. That's really not realistic. What's more it's not practical to inquire of other processes how much memory they need. Leave it all to the system.
Set a budget for your app and make sure you don't exceed it. Keep the most recently used images in memory and when you approach your memory budget throw away the least recently used images to make space.
If you are stressing the available resources then make sure you use FastMM and enable LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE for your app so that you get 4GB address space when running on a 64 bit OS.
I was reading an article on memory fragmentation when I recalled that there are several examples of software that claim to defragment memory. I got curious, how does it work? Does it work at all?
EDIT:
xappymah gave a good argument against memory defragmentation in that a process might be very surprised to learn that its memory layout suddenly changed. But as I see it there's still the possibility of the OS providing some sort of API for global memory control. It does seem a bit unlikely however since it would give rise to the possibility of using it in malicious intent, if badly designed. Does anyone know if there is an OS out there that supports something of the sort?
The real memory defragmentation on a process level is possible only in managed environments such as, for example, Java VMs when you have some kind of an access to objects allocated in memory and can manage them.
But if we are talking about the unmanaged applications then there is no possibility to control their memory with third-party tools because every process (both the tool and the application) runs in its own address space and doesn't have access to another's one, at least without help from OS.
However even if you get access to another process's memory (by hacking your OS or else) and start modifying it I think the target application would be very "surprised".
Just imagine, you allocated a chunk of memory, got it's starting address and on the next second this chunk of memory is moved somewhere else because of "VeryCoolMemoryDefragmenter" :)
In my opinion memory it's a kind of Flash Drive, and this chip don't get fragmented because there aren't turning disks pins recording and playing information, in a random way, like a lie detector. This is the way that Hard Disk Fragmentation it's done. That's why SSD drives are so fast, effective, reliable and maintenance free. SSD it's a BIG piece of memory and it kind of look alike.
I have a VPS with not very much memory (256Mb) which I am trying to use for Common Lisp development with SBCL+Hunchentoot to write some simple web-apps. A large amount of memory appears to be getting used without doing anything particularly complex, and after a while of serving pages it runs out of memory and either goes crazy using all swap or (if there is no swap) just dies.
So I need help to:
Find out what is using all the memory (if it's libraries or me, especially)
Limit the amount of memory which SBCL is allowed to use, to avoid massive quantities of swapping
Handle things cleanly when memory runs out, rather than crashing (since it's a web-app I want it to carry on and try to clean up).
I assume the first two are reasonably straightforward, but is the third even possible?
How do people handle out-of-memory or constrained memory conditions in Lisp?
(Also, I note that a 64-bit SBCL appears to use literally twice as much memory as 32-bit. Is this expected? I can run a 32-bit version if it will save a lot of memory)
To limit the memory usage of SBCL, use --dynamic-space-size option (e.g.,sbcl --dynamic-space-size 128 will limit memory usage to 128M).
To find out who is using memory, you may call (room) (the function that tells how much memory is being used) at different times: at startup, after all libraries are loaded and then during work (of cource, call (sb-ext:gc :full t) before room not to measure the garbage that has not yet been collected).
Also, it is possible to use SBCL Profiler to measure memory allocation.
Find out what is using all the memory
(if it's libraries or me, especially)
Attila Lendvai has some SBCL-specific code to find out where an allocated objects comes from. Refer to http://article.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.steel-bank.devel/12903 and write him a private mail if needed.
Be sure to try another implementation, preferably with a precise GC (like Clozure CL) to ensure it's not an implementation-specific leak.
Limit the amount of memory which SBCL
is allowed to use, to avoid massive
quantities of swapping
Already answered by others.
Handle things cleanly when memory runs
out, rather than crashing (since it's
a web-app I want it to carry on and
try to clean up).
256MB is tight, but anyway: schedule a recurring (maybe 1s) timed thread that checks the remaining free space. If the free space is less than X then use exec() to replace the current SBCL process image with a new one.
If you don't have any type declarations, I would expect 64-bit Lisp to take twice the space of a 32-bit one. Even a plain (small) int will use a 64-bit chunk of memory. I don't think it'll use less than a machine word, unless you declare it.
I can't help with #2 and #3, but if you figure out #1, I suspect it won't be a problem. I've seen SBCL/Hunchentoot instances running for ages. If I'm using an outrageous amount of memory, it's usually my own fault. :-)
I would not be surprised by a 64-bit SBCL using twice the meory, as it will probably use a 64-bit cell rather than a 32-bit one, but couldn't say for sure without actually checking.
Typical things that keep memory hanging around for longer than expected are no-longer-useful references that still have a path to the root allocation set (hash tables are, I find, a good way of letting these things linger). You could try interspersing explicit calls to GC in your code and make sure to (as far as possible) not store things in global variables.