lies, damn lies and erlang memory use

Matthias Lang matthias@REDACTED
Mon Oct 21 10:43:38 CEST 2002

mml> The underlying problem is that the Erlang VM appears to grow, slowly,
mml> without apparent bound. As always, I have no idea why.
mml> If I run the instrumented VM on it, it seems to show me rather more
mml> holes than I expected

Mats>  if i add up erlang:system_info(allocated_areas), total heap memory
Mats>  ([process_info(P,memory)||P<-processes()]) and total ets memory
Mats>  ([ets:info(T,memory)||T<-ets:all()]) i get between 99% and 0% of
Mats>  what the os reports, depending on the history of the node. i would
Mats>  expect that the "holes" of matthias accounts for much (all?) of the
Mats>  rest. what do you get if you do that addition, matthias?  we have
Mats>  tried many different mallocs, none has been outstanding.

The odd thing is that I measured the memory use while hitting the node
with requests; the 55% holes appeared to be steady-state.

There are several levels of memory management involved; as far as I
can tell, all combinations of slab allocator (+Sr2, +Sr1, -Se false)
and malloc allocator (+m elib, +m libc) are reasonable.

In our particular case, the defaults (+Sr1, +m libc) give us really
awful memory use characteristics. Using +Sr2 +m libc works really

Someone on the inside care to comment? Is there some gotcha with
+Sr2---otherwise why isn't it the default? 

What do I mean by "good" and "awful"? Here's what the memory use looks
like while running the system stress test on R8B-2:

    Elapsed time       Memory use with: +Sr1     +Sr2
    0                                   5.8M     5.6M
    1 minute                            6.3M     6.2M
    10 minutes                          9.6M     6.2M
    1 hour                             13.8M     6.4M
    5 hours             (out-of-memory crash)    6.2M


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list