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

[Ingela Andin]

Hi!

Did you try observing your system with the observer application? You should
be able to get much better information of what Erlang processes consume a
lot of memory and
why.


Regards Ingela Erlang/OTP Team - Ericsson AB


2015-02-20 20:19 GMT+01:00 Roberto Ostinelli <roberto@REDACTED>:

> As an addendum: I apologise because this cannot be clearly seen in the
> charts (I forgot to "humanise" the axis), but we're talking about a steady
> RAM usage of 4.5GB without SSL, in comparison to blowing up a node with
> 30GB with SSL.
>
> Best,
> r.
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Roberto Ostinelli <roberto@REDACTED>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear List,
>> Given the amount of answers I got in this post, I want to follow up and
>> give some additional information.
>>
>> After struggling for quite a while, I just did a comparison between using
>> SSL connections vs standard TCP connections.
>> The results are quite impressive.
>>
>> This is the diagram of memory evolution for a system under load, with SSL:
>> https://cldup.com/cNOc8hS004-2000x2000.png
>>
>> This is the same system, but without SSL:
>> https://cldup.com/sx3RrdMR8o-3000x3000.png
>>
>> You can clearly see that using standard TCP connections the system is
>> extremely stable.
>> Using SSL connections, on the other hand, results in RAM memory having
>> very erratic behavior that ends up blowing up the node.
>>
>> Not sure what to do with this information, except that I'm going to use a
>> SSL termination (HAProxy or ELB) and have my Erlang node run without SSL.
>>
>> If anyone is curious just ping me.
>>
>> Best,
>> r.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Roberto Ostinelli <
>> roberto.ostinelli@REDACTED> wrote:
>>
>>> That's a valid point, and I can clarify.
>>>
>>> During the first phase, all the long lived connections are made. During
>>> the second phase, newly-created short lived connections send messages to
>>> the long lived ones.
>>>
>>> The long lived connection are all connected when the first memory
>>> increase phase ends, which is when the short-lived connections start
>>> sending messages.
>>>
>>> What is unclear to me is why the second memory increase phase happens
>>> quite some time after these short lived processes have started sending
>>> messages.
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 28/gen/2015, at 20:02, Anton Lebedevich <mabrek@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > The graph looks really weird for me assuming that the load applied to
>>> > the system is stable. Why does it go down for a short time and then
>>> > jumps higher than it was?
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20150224/3aa7a535/attachment.htm>