[erlang-questions] Garbage Collection, BEAM memory and Erlang memory

[Ulf Wiger]

> On 22 Jan 2015, at 17:33, Roberto Ostinelli <roberto@REDACTED> wrote:
> 
>  {<0.428.0>,[],142896},
>  {<0.429.0>,[],142896},
>  {<0.430.0>,[],142896}]
> 
> See the last processes there with all identical memory? These are the processes handling the connections, and they stay stable with the same identical number throughout all test.

Are you using min_heap_size on these?

One thing we stumbled across fairly early on in the exometer development was that memory increased until the node ran out of memory. What was needed was to lower the fullsweep_after threshold for processes that had an increased min_heap_size. The default fullsweep_after is very high, and what can happen is that the old_heap grows a lot between the fullsweeps.

In our case, {fullsweep_after, 10} was sufficient to solve the problem.

You did say that you’d try applying fullsweep_after selectively, but wasn’t sure if you tried this.

BR,
Ulf W

Ulf Wiger, Co-founder & Developer Advocate, Feuerlabs Inc.
http://feuerlabs.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20150123/424cf270/attachment.htm>