I use in my start.pl:

use Apache2::SizeLimit ();
$Apache2::SizeLimit::CHECK_EVERY_N_REQUESTS = 5;
$Apache2::SizeLimit::MAX_UNSHARED_SIZE = 50000;

It might allow you to use prefork MPM without worrying so much about
too much memory being taken.

-bop


On Oct 16, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Mark Maunder wrote:

> Also, just some additional data for the archives and discussion: It
> seems (in my case) that prefork is much more memory hungry than
> worker. Here are the details:
>
> I switched to a prefork model from worker MPM. As I mentioned before
> my load avg seemed to drop, but memory usage went up. It continued to
> rise as my processes grew. My mod_perl app works with some fairly
> large data structures and AFAIK perl doesn't like to free memory back
> to the OS once it's allocated it, so the processes tend to grow for
> the first few hours of the server being up and then the plateau and
> grow about 1 meg per day (a slow leak I think).
>
> I brought up my server with prefork and only 150 children. As the
> processes started growing my box ran out of memory, started swapping
> heavily and I had to shut down and revert to worker.
>
> I'm back on worker and I have a full 250 threads with much lower
> memory usage.
>
> My unscientific data is as follows:
>
> When i was running with prefork, each process was 29 Megs and there
> were 150 of them. That's 4.3 Gigs and my box only has 2 Gigs so
> apparently copy-on-write was in effect and some of that was shared.
>
> Now that I'm back to threads, my largest process is 200Megs and there
> are 5 of them (four seem to be consuming memory, so I assume the 5th
> is the parent?). So the total memory consumed without sharing is 1
> Gig.
>
> So even without copy-on-write it seems that worker MPM is much more
> memory efficient in my case. This may be something specific to my
> config because my app is smaller than most apps I've written.
>
> BTW, most of my app is written as handlers and all modules are loaded
> in startup.pl.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/16/07, Mark Maunder wrote:
>> Thanks guys. I assumed worker would save me memory because threads
>> are
>> light(er)weight. I'm busy trying prefork now and my load avg seems to
>> have dropped slightly, but my memory usage seems to have gone up
>> somewhat.
>>
>> Just read your comments in the archives on copy-on-write Perrin - I
>> had no idea it doesn't work for threads. Thanks for that!
>>
>> http://www.jsw4.net/info/listserv_ar..._perl/07-wk22/
>> msg00022.html
>>
>> However, my original problem may still exist and I have more data
>> now.
>> I noticed the number of httpd children just went up from 150 to 152
>> and is holding there and I also have two messages in my error log
>> that
>> look like the following:
>>
>> (70007)The timeout specified has expired: ap_get_brigade failed
>> during
>> prefetch, referer: *snip*
>>
>> I've looked at my logs going back the last 3 days and this message
>> appears several times over the last 3 days. It's the only message out
>> of the ordinary. I've googled this message before and haven't found
>> much of an explanation.
>>
>> Have any of you seen this before? Any idea what causes it? I've
>> confirmed it appears whether I'm running as worker or prefork.
>>
>> Thanks again for your help so far!
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>>
>> On 10/16/07, Perrin Harkins wrote:
>>> On 10/16/07, Clinton Gormley wrote:
>>>> Unless you have a really good reason to use worker, on linux, the
>>>> recommended MPM is worker.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you meant to say prefork there. And I agree, if you're
>>> concerned about memory, don't use threads. Prefork will save you
>>> memory because of copy-on-write.
>>>
>>> - Perrin
>>>

>>