AW: AW: [ejabberd] ejabberd vs Jabber XCP

Staudinger, Ulrich ulrich.staudinger at lycos-europe.com
Fri May 5 16:12:01 MSD 2006


In my tests I came to a different memory consumption. 
http://activestocks.de/xwiki/bin/download/Main/EJabberD+informations/Test1-slycl337-ram.gif

That's the memory chart, ramp up time of 20 minutes, staying there for another 20 minutes. 

Left is memory in MB, right number of conc. Users. 

Regards,
Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ejabberd-bounces at jabber.ru [mailto:ejabberd-bounces at jabber.ru] Im Auftrag von Joel Reymont
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Mai 2006 13:34
An: ejabberd at jabber.ru
Betreff: Re: AW: [ejabberd] ejabberd vs Jabber XCP


On May 5, 2006, at 12:21 PM, Pieter Rautenbach wrote:

> 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

I never meant to imply that all the memory is taken by user contexts, i.e. data kept per user.  All I'm saying is that ejabberd, Mnesia, etc. use strings internally and most everywhere it appears.

You should still see 1-2Gb of memory use on a 32-bit machine and a 64- bit machine probably does not gain you much right now. As soon as string use within ejabberd is optimized (Summer of Code project?) you should be able to fit twice as many users on your 64-bit server. I don't think a factor of 16 (1 byte vs 16 right now) is likely, though.

	Joel

--
http://wagerlabs.com/

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


More information about the ejabberd mailing list