Article delegate-en/1042 of [1-5169] on the server localhost:119
  upper oldest olders older1 this newer1 newers latest
search
[Top/Up] [oldest] - [Older+chunk] - [Newer+chunk] - [newest + Check]
[Reference:<_A1001@delegate-en.ML_>]
Newsgroups: mail-lists.delegate-en

[DeleGate-En] Re: Can memory usage be reduced?
02 Mar 2001 13:21:05 GMT Eric Hameleers <pcicabdyi-a3dey5mhvelr.ml@ml.delegate.org>
IBM Global Services


Yes I have

I am currently running a pilot where people will be using several
delegate service processes running on an NT4 server. I got the shivers
after looking at the process list when this server is running for
several days, and after piloting a number of 80 people will be accessing
my server; the pilot users are only 10. So yes, I'd like to see this
forking new processes go away!



> Peter Steele wrote:
> 
> I see no one has replied to my posting. Has no one else had memory
> concerns with DeleGate, particularly under NT?
> 
> Peter Steele
> 
> "Peter Steele" <p2ybqbdyi-a3dey5mhvelr.ml@ml.delegate.org> wrote in message
> news:<_A997@delegate-en.ML_>...
> 
> > We're considering delegate as a way to provide SSL for our
> customized
> > HTTP/XML server. Our server runs on Windows NT so we're using the NT
> version
> > of delegate. The problem we've seen in initial tests is the amount
> of memory
> > delegate consumes. It starts out as a single process taking about a
> megabyte
> > of memory. When we connect to our server using our manangement
> client,
> > *nine* instances of the delegate process are spawned as well as
> three
> > instances of sslway. This consumes approx. 10 MB of memory.
> Additional
> > clients connecting to the server generate additional delegate and
> sslway
> > processes. Memory would very quickly become exhausted with the
> number of
> > potential client connections we anticipate.
> >
> > For comparison we tried stunnel and it uses very little memory,
> using
> > multithreading and shared DDLs instead of forking. Unfortunately
> stunnel
> > lacks a lot of the functionality of delegate. We need the additional
> 
> > features that delegate provides but its memory usage is a show
> stopper. We
> > considering looking into the code to see how easily we could convert
> it from
> > forking to multithreading. Any comments on how feasible this would
> be? Any
> > other advice on how to reduce delegates memory usage?
> >
> > Peter Steele
> > ONI Systems
> >
Eric Hameleers
IBM

  admin search upper oldest olders older1 this newer1 newers latest
[Top/Up] [oldest] - [Older+chunk] - [Newer+chunk] - [newest + Check]
@_@V