If it helps, you could reduce the stack size on linux using ulimit -s <stackSizeInKB)
thanks! rohitk On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:32 PM, letmewatch.TV <pay.letmewatch...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Dormando, > > Thanks for your response. > > > On 06/02/2011 23:44, dormando wrote: > >> I've found (part of) the answer to my own question - the virtual >>> memory comes from the thread stacks. Setting -t 1 reduces the virtual >>> memory to around 20MB. >>> >>> I've read from other posts that it is no longer possible to have a non- >>> threaded memcached version. It appears on my system that the stack >>> size being used is 10MB. This is almost certainly way too large. Is >>> there any way to conveniently (i.e. without major edits to the source >>> code) set the thread stack size for the threads that memcached uses, >>> e.g. through a macro setting? >>> >> There's some amount of overhead with pre-allocating the hash table and >> this and that... that'll show up as virtual memory until data's written >> into it. Also note that memcached will lazily allocate one slab per slab >> class, so even if you set -m 12 you'll end up using 50+ megs of ram if you >> put one item in each slab class. >> >> You could also use -I to lower the max item size and reduce some overhead. >> > I tried varying the values for -I, but it made no difference to the overall > vmem displayed when starting up (though it may in time). > > Don't think it explicitly sets the thread stack size, and I forget how to >> tweak that offhand, I think google will tell you :P >> > I've decided to move my memory caching into eaccelerator (for PHP), since > for the current app it doesn't need data to be hosted on multiple machines - > and thus both reduces the size of virtual mem and will access the data > slightly quicker. > > Thanks again, > > Dave. > >
