Rack and memory usage ?

Rack and memory usage ?

[David Unric]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 767 bytes --]

Hi,

I'm asking if am I doing something wrong or is normal for a minimal rack 
application have memory footprint over 25 MiB ?

I'd like to reduce the memory usage as possible for deployment of a Sinatra 
app on small x86 Linux NAS device. I did measured the memory usage and Rack 
occupies about excessive 26 from total of 31 MiB (the rest is Thin server + 
the app).

Is there some Rack-lite or some trick how to shake-off unnecessary code to 
get it on diet ?

Thanks.

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rack Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rack-devel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 994 bytes --]

Re: Rack and memory usage ?

[richard schneeman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1781 bytes --]

Just running `irb` with no libraries is 9.9 mb for me with Ruby 2.2.3. In Ruby 2.0 it's 17.9mb for me. Ruby is not known to be the most memory efficient language. 




I wrote a tool to help debug memor use in apps, check it out https://github.com/schneems/derailed_benchmarks




You can run 




$ derailed bundle:mem




To see the memory impact of all the gems you're using at require time. 




Here's more information: http://www.schneems.com/2015/05/11/how-ruby-uses-memory.html














---Richard Schneeman


http://www.schneems.com

On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, David Unric <dunric29a@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm asking if am I doing something wrong or is normal for a minimal rack 
> application have memory footprint over 25 MiB ?
> I'd like to reduce the memory usage as possible for deployment of a Sinatra 
> app on small x86 Linux NAS device. I did measured the memory usage and Rack 
> occupies about excessive 26 from total of 31 MiB (the rest is Thin server + 
> the app).
> Is there some Rack-lite or some trick how to shake-off unnecessary code to 
> get it on diet ?
> Thanks.
> -- 
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rack Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rack-devel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rack Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rack-devel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2897 bytes --]

Re: Rack and memory usage ?

[David Unric]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2540 bytes --]

Simple script takes about 6.2 MiB of memory with Ruby 2.2.3 on x86_64 
machine

    ruby --disable=gems,rubyopt -e 'gets'

so  31 - 5 - 6.2 ≈ 20 MiB is for Rack

Not saying this is bad but if there is a way how to push it lower. AFAIK 
all ruby web servers are built upon Rack, not aware of any going its own 
independent way.

Thanks for link to derailed_benchmarks gem. Looks promising, definitely 
would take a closer look at it.

Btw. CRuby does not seem any worse then his "main" rival. Equivalent script 
takes about 6.4 MiB with Python 2.7.10 and 7.7 MiB on Python 3.4.3.

On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 10:54:44 PM UTC+2, richard schneeman wrote:
>
> Just running `irb` with no libraries is 9.9 mb for me with Ruby 2.2.3. In 
> Ruby 2.0 it's 17.9mb for me. Ruby is not known to be the most memory 
> efficient language. 
>
> I wrote a tool to help debug memor use in apps, check it out 
> https://github.com/schneems/derailed_benchmarks
>
> You can run 
>
> $ derailed bundle:mem
>
> To see the memory impact of all the gems you're using at require time. 
>
> Here's more information: 
> http://www.schneems.com/2015/05/11/how-ruby-uses-memory.html
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Richard Schneeman 
> http://www.schneems.com
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, David Unric <dunr...@gmail.com 
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm asking if am I doing something wrong or is normal for a minimal rack 
>> application have memory footprint over 25 MiB ?
>>
>> I'd like to reduce the memory usage as possible for deployment of a 
>> Sinatra app on small x86 Linux NAS device. I did measured the memory usage 
>> and Rack occupies about excessive 26 from total of 31 MiB (the rest is Thin 
>> server + the app).
>>
>> Is there some Rack-lite or some trick how to shake-off unnecessary code 
>> to get it on diet ?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Rack Development" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to rack-devel+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rack Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rack-devel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5426 bytes --]

Re: Rack and memory usage ?

[James Tucker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10729 bytes --]

On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 2:54 PM David Unric <dunric29a@gmail.com> wrote:

> Simple script takes about 6.2 MiB of memory with Ruby 2.2.3 on x86_64
> machine
>
>     ruby --disable=gems,rubyopt -e 'gets'
>
> so  31 - 5 - 6.2 ≈ 20 MiB is for Rack
>

No. These are not comparable numbers. You've included random gems in there.

Here:
~rack/rack % ruby -v
ruby 2.0.0p247 (2013-06-27 revision 41674) [x86_64-linux]
~rack/rack % ruby --disable=gems -e 'system "ps -orss= #$$"'
 6028
~rack/rack % ruby --disable=gems -Ilib -rrack -e 'system "ps -orss= #$$"'
 6244

That's 216KB.

But I'm bending the truth too now, so in the interest of being honest, lets
load ALL of rack:

~rack/rack % ruby --disable=gems -e 'system "ps -orss= #$$"'
      6060
~rack/rack % ruby --disable=gems -Ilib -rrack -e 'Dir["lib/**/*.rb"].each {
|f| begin; require f[%r%lib/(.*)$%, 1]; rescue LoadError; puts "skipped
#{f}"; end}; system "ps -orss= #$$"'
skipped lib/rack/session/memcache.rb
skipped lib/rack/handler/thin.rb
skipped lib/rack/handler/lsws.rb
skipped lib/rack/handler/scgi.rb
skipped lib/rack/handler/fastcgi.rb
20244

So that's ~14MB. HOWEVER, this is counting GC_MALLOC_LIMIT space, and the
waste I produced loading things:
:heap_live_num=>73962, :heap_free_num=>50543

Ruby 1.8.7, which the most recent releases dropped support for (you can fix
this by undoing silly stylistic patches that I rejected for years), would
only add about 10MB of heap fully loaded too.

But lets look now at something a bit more real than just smash loading
support for 9 servers, several authentication systems, session stuff, and
maybe 10 (?) middleware that you're not using, and instead just load an
actual minimal app:

~rack/rack % ruby --disable=gems -Ilib -rrack -e 'require "rack/server";
Rack::Server.new.start; system "ps -orss= #$$"' example/lobster.ru
[2015-08-24 15:36:35] INFO  WEBrick 1.3.1
[2015-08-24 15:36:35] INFO  ruby 2.0.0 (2013-06-27) [x86_64-linux]
[2015-08-24 15:36:35] INFO  WEBrick::HTTPServer#start: pid=16353 port=9292
^C[2015-08-24 15:36:37] INFO  going to shutdown ...
[2015-08-24 15:36:37] INFO  WEBrick::HTTPServer#start done.
16444

So now we're talking <10MB for a fully running application using webrick
(which is not the smallest), on ruby 2.0 still, which is pretty fat. To
just prove that, lets demonstrate some cgi.rb simplicity:

~rack/rack % env SCRIPT_NAME=/ HTTP_VERSION=1.0 SERVER_PORT=101010
SERVER_NAME=cgi REQUEST_METHOD=GET ruby --disable=gems -Ilib -rrack -e
'require "rack/server"; Rack::Server.new.start; system "ps -orss= #$$"; p
GC.stat' example/lobster.ru
Status: 200
Content-Length: 592

<title>Lobstericious!</title><pre>                             ,.---._
                   ,,,,     /       `,
                    \\\\   /    '\_  ;
                     |||| /\/``-.__\;'
                     ::::/\/_
     {{`-.__.-'(`(^^(^^^(^ 9 `.========='
    {{{{{{ { ( ( (  (   (-----:=
     {{.-'~~'-.(,(,,(,,,(__6_.'=========.
                     ::::\/\
                     |||| \/\  ,-'/,
                    ////   \ `` _/ ;
                   ''''     \  `  .'
                             `---'
</pre><p><a href='?flip=left'>flip!</a></p><p><a
href='?flip=crash'>crash!</a></p>13232
{:count=>4, :heap_used=>136, :heap_length=>138, :heap_increment=>2,
:heap_live_num=>55223, :heap_free_num=>20068, :heap_final_num=>0,
:total_allocated_object=>84612, :total_freed_object=>29389}

So that's 7172KB, or about 7MB, and again, look at GC.stat there, a large
part of the heap is free.

Not saying this is bad but if there is a way how to push it lower. AFAIK
> all ruby web servers are built upon Rack, not aware of any going its own
> independent way.
>

Nope. Most webservers just implement the Rack SPEC. They shouldn't need any
hard dependency on Rack itself.

If memory serves, and I haven't been doing Rack/Ruby for a while, but Puma
has no hard dependency on Rack.

There are novelty servers such as the evented servers and so on that also
implement other specs/protocols (normally their own).

Thanks for link to derailed_benchmarks gem. Looks promising, definitely
> would take a closer look at it.
>
> Btw. CRuby does not seem any worse then his "main" rival. Equivalent
> script takes about 6.4 MiB with Python 2.7.10 and 7.7 MiB on Python 3.4.3.
>

Well since YARV and the various GC tunings it's got a lot more heavy
actually, and a lot more overhead and so on have landed in the stdlib (e.g.
"packaged gems" and so on). This has a lot to do with the fact that the
bulk of users for a long time have been running fat applications (e.g.
rails).

I still have some suuuuper old campfire daemons around that after many
years of uptime are still sitting on a less than 10MB rss. *shrug*

Some final notes:

Rack::Server isn't all that light, it uses option parsers and maps env vars
and so on, and creates some garbage. It may also be loading more than it
needs to. You could setup a much lighter runtime by using the Handler API
directly and configuring things in more memory efficient way (i.e.
hardcoded). That's up to you.

I also made a mistake in the above runs, but now can't be bothered to fix
it, which is that they're all using the Rack development environment, which
is loading middleware you probably don't need in production (e.g.
rack/show_exceptions). You'll only really notice the difference if you trim
the GC though, as there's more other garbage going on to expand the heap
than is evident just avoiding a few more middleware - test it out yourself
adding and removing the `-E none` parameter.

I just re-ran with 2.2.3 and it seems to do better in not making excessive
allocations:

~rack/rack 2.2.3 % ruby --disable=gems -e 'system "ps -orss= #$$"'
 6192
~rack/rack 2.2.3 % ruby -Ilib -rrack -e 'Dir["lib/**/*.rb"].each { |f|
begin; require f[%r%lib/(.*)$%, 1]; rescue LoadError; puts "skipped #{f}";
end}; system "ps -orss= #$$"'
skipped lib/rack/session/memcache.rb
skipped lib/rack/handler/thin.rb
skipped lib/rack/handler/lsws.rb
skipped lib/rack/handler/scgi.rb
skipped lib/rack/handler/fastcgi.rb
20400
~rack/rack 2.2.3 % env SCRIPT_NAME=/ HTTP_VERSION=1.0 SERVER_PORT=101010
SERVER_NAME=cgi REQUEST_METHOD=GET ruby --disable=gems -Ilib -rrack -e
'require "rack/server"; Rack::Server.new.start; system "ps -orss= #$$"; p
GC.stat' example/lobster.ru -E none
Status: 200
Content-Length: 592

<title>Lobstericious!</title><pre>                             ,.---._
                   ,,,,     /       `,
                    \\\\   /    '\_  ;
                     |||| /\/``-.__\;'
                     ::::/\/_
     {{`-.__.-'(`(^^(^^^(^ 9 `.========='
    {{{{{{ { ( ( (  (   (-----:=
     {{.-'~~'-.(,(,,(,,,(__6_.'=========.
                     ::::\/\
                     |||| \/\  ,-'/,
                    ////   \ `` _/ ;
                   ''''     \  `  .'
                             `---'
</pre><p><a href='?flip=left'>flip!</a></p><p><a
href='?flip=crash'>crash!</a></p>11268
{:count=>7, :heap_allocated_pages=>74, :heap_sorted_length=>75,
:heap_allocatable_pages=>0, :heap_available_slots=>30163,
:heap_live_slots=>29829, :heap_free_slots=>334, :heap_final_slots=>0,
:heap_marked_slots=>13743, :heap_swept_slots=>8794, :heap_eden_pages=>74,
:heap_tomb_pages=>0, :total_allocated_pages=>74, :total_freed_pages=>0,
:total_allocated_objects=>89907, :total_freed_objects=>60078,
:malloc_increase_bytes=>712520, :malloc_increase_bytes_limit=>16777216,
:minor_gc_count=>4, :major_gc_count=>3,
:remembered_wb_unprotected_objects=>346,
:remembered_wb_unprotected_objects_limit=>692, :old_objects=>10816,
:old_objects_limit=>21634, :oldmalloc_increase_bytes=>1082840,
:oldmalloc_increase_bytes_limit=>16777216}

That's only 5MB fully loaded, after serving a request...

You could also consider compiling with / LD_PRELOADING in jemalloc or
tcmalloc or whatever, although that doesn't tend to make too much
difference in heap size, it's more of a performance concern. Depends a bit
on your platform and allocator(s), but there's a possibility these could
save you relevant heap space at this level.

... blah ... I'll leave it there for now.

You said you "measured" this and found that Rack was taking 26MB of 31.
That doesn't really make sense, can you please provide a reproduction case?


>
>
> On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 10:54:44 PM UTC+2, richard schneeman wrote:
>
>> Just running `irb` with no libraries is 9.9 mb for me with Ruby 2.2.3. In
>> Ruby 2.0 it's 17.9mb for me. Ruby is not known to be the most memory
>> efficient language.
>>
>> I wrote a tool to help debug memor use in apps, check it out
>> https://github.com/schneems/derailed_benchmarks
>>
>> You can run
>>
>> $ derailed bundle:mem
>>
>> To see the memory impact of all the gems you're using at require time.
>>
>> Here's more information:
>> http://www.schneems.com/2015/05/11/how-ruby-uses-memory.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Richard Schneeman
>> http://www.schneems.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, David Unric <dunr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm asking if am I doing something wrong or is normal for a minimal rack
>>> application have memory footprint over 25 MiB ?
>>>
>>> I'd like to reduce the memory usage as possible for deployment of a
>>> Sinatra app on small x86 Linux NAS device. I did measured the memory usage
>>> and Rack occupies about excessive 26 from total of 31 MiB (the rest is Thin
>>> server + the app).
>>>
>>> Is there some Rack-lite or some trick how to shake-off unnecessary code
>>> to get it on diet ?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Rack Development" group.
>>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to rack-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>> --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Rack Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to rack-devel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rack Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rack-devel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 15967 bytes --]

Re: Rack and memory usage ?

[Christian Neukirchen]

James Tucker <jftucker@gmail.com> writes:

> ... blah ... I'll leave it there for now.

Thank you very much for that mail!
-- 
Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen@gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org

Re: Rack and memory usage ?

[Eric Wong]

James Tucker <jftucker@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well since YARV and the various GC tunings it's got a lot more heavy
> actually, and a lot more overhead and so on have landed in the stdlib (e.g.
> "packaged gems" and so on). This has a lot to do with the fact that the
> bulk of users for a long time have been running fat applications (e.g.
> rails).

Yeah.  Lots of the GC speed improvements (lazy sweep, generational GC)
lead to increased memory usage.  We've been trying to fight back in
ruby-core and getting ordering removed from non-Hash stuff might
promising for 2.3:

	https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11414
	https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11420

Lately, working again in Perl5 has gotten me to appreciate the control
afforded by reference counting :)

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rack Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rack-devel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.