AW: [ejabberd] ejabberd vs Jabber XCP

Pieter Rautenbach Pieter.Rautenbach at clockspeed.co.za
Fri May 5 15:21:04 MSD 2006


********************************************************
Click here to view our e-mail legal notice: 
http://www.tebivo.com/email.htm or call: +27 21 888 7920
********************************************************
It's indeed a 64-bit server. I understand the reasoning, but I disagree: not all
ejabberd data in memory could be strings! Thus, the memory usage cannot be
entirely attributed to the use of strings. Here are similar figures for a single
CPU server, having 14,065 users online:
USER     PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
ejabberd 16   0 4778m 3.7g 1692 R 23.3 95.8 63:00.41  beam

As you can see, in this case the memory consumption (resident memory) is even
higher.

Pieter Rautenbach

Previously stated figures for 64-bit server (14,287 online users):
USER     PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
ejabberd 16   0 5344m 3.2g 1532 D  7.8 83.6  1363:02  beam

-----Original Message-----
From: ejabberd-bounces at jabber.ru [mailto:ejabberd-bounces at jabber.ru] On Behalf
Of Joel Reymont
Sent: 05 May 2006 12:54 PM
To: ejabberd at jabber.ru
Subject: Re: AW: [ejabberd] ejabberd vs Jabber XCP


On May 5, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Pieter Rautenbach wrote:

> USER     PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
> ejabberd 16   0 5344m 3.2g 1532 D  7.8 83.6  1363:02  beam

This is likely a 64-bit AMD machine, is it? If so then 64-bit  
accounts for the extra memory use. According to Mickael it's mostly  
due to using strings. Strings are lists of words and words in your  
case are 64-bit. Ouch!

--
http://wagerlabs.com/





_______________________________________________
ejabberd mailing list
ejabberd at jabber.ru
http://lists.jabber.ru/mailman/listinfo/ejabberd



More information about the ejabberd mailing list