25 May
2005
25 May
'05
1:39 a.m.
Paul,
Like you, I'm not totally familiar with SER's memory management. I just
happened to bookmark that link which I think is useful.
Before we jump into conclusion that SER memory management is at flaw, can
you just recompile SER and confirm that change fix your problem. I would
like to know the result too.
The loading of location table is done in the mod_init() function, not
child_init() function. Base on that information, I would assume that only
the master process has to allocate that much memory. The child processes
need only know the pointer to that list. Thus, there is no need of 4G as in
your example. Again, this is only my assumption. It's better to raise
another thread to ask the maintainer.
Regards,
Zeus
Zeus...thanks for the post.
However, it does a raise new (and possibly disturbing)
question about SER's memory usage architecture.
Here is the question; If I have 500000 records in the
location table and for the sake of this example, let's assume
that each usrloc contact occupies 1024 bytes of memory. To
load all 500000 usrloc records we would need (500000 x 1024)
bytes of memory plus the structure overhead. So let's just
estimate it to be a total of 512MB of memory for discussions
sake. (I realize that the actual memory requirements will be
much lower).
Now when SER starts up it needs to load all usrloc records in
to memory. Per the email in the archives, SER will do this in
private memory space. I assume that after all usrloc records
are loaded in to private memory that they are then copied to
shared memory. The amount of private memory is specified in
config.h as PKG_MEM_POOL_SIZE and affects __ALL__ ser processes.
This then implies that in order to load a large number of
usrloc records I need to increase PKG_MEM_POOL_SIZE to
approximately 512MB which then affects __ALL__ ser processes.
If I specify ser to use 8 child processes in my ser.cfg file
then will ser attempt to allocate 512MB x 8 or (4GB) of
memory just to start up???
If this is the case when the fundamental architecture is
flawed as it would make much more sense to have a single
process load usrloc records in to shared memory and then fork
the children with a much smaller amount of private memory.
Am I totally missing something here?
Regards,
Paul
On 5/23/05, Zeus Ng <zeus.ng(a)isquare.com.au> wrote:
This may help.
http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serusers/2004-December/013593.html
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)lists.iptel.org
[mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Java Rockx
Sent: Tuesday, 24 May 2005 11:09 AM
To: serusers
Subject: [Serusers] SER Reports "out of memory"
Hi All.
I'm using ser-0.9.2 and testing how it works when the
location table has many thousands of rows.
ser will not start when the location table has many rows. SER
loads the first 1344 records and then pukes on the 1345th
record with an out of memory error. I've started ser with "-m
512" but that doesn't seem to make any difference.
Am I doing something wrong?
Also, for my "test" data I simply created a bunch of bogus
records in the location table. I did not do anything with the
subscriber table. Does this matter? If so, what needs to be
done in order to create a large number of "registered" users?
Regards,
Paul