It looks like Python is on to a 2.6 branch now and that it's stable. Given that I can't install the 2.5 RPMs in CentOS 4 because of dependency issues I'll have to build from source. Is there much point in going from 2.3 to 2.5 when I could go to 2.6? Are the memory changes only in 2.5 so far?
As for the strings issue, that sounds like a bit of a flaw. I guess it's just another "memory is getting cheap" assumption. Thanks. On Dec 27, 10:36 am, Noah Kantrowitz <[email protected]> wrote: > Its a common problem among all Python web frameworks (and lets face > it, Trac really is a Python web framework that happens to ship with a > very project tool as the example app instead of Hello World). Mostly > it is because they use tons of strings, especially during template > rendering. In many places Trac trades pure efficiency for programmer > friendliness. Earlier versions of Trac (before 0.11) used Clearsilver, > a C-based templating system, and were therefore not subject to the > whims of the Python string allocator. It will obviously limit what > features are available, and what 3rd party tools you can use, but > staying at the last 0.10 release might be a solution for the moment. > > --Noah > > On Dec 27, 2008, at 5:14 AM, IBBoard wrote: > > > > > 50 to 100MB? What's it caching (and does it need to)?! I've got > > desktop apps with a full GUI that don't take that much memory! Even > > Thunderbird on my machine is only using ~75MB and that's with the > > bloat of the XUL interface and some huge inboxes. > > > I'll try to upgrade to a newer Python as I'm still back on 2.3 (it's a > > CentOS 4.6 VPS so it's not too up-to-date by as standard). Hopefully > > Python won't have too many dependencies! > > > Looks like I might have to start upgrading the server's memory once it > > starts getting used more :\ So far I've only got a couple of small SVN > > repos and I'm the only user. I don't think I'd have had these memory > > usage problems if I'd stuck with Mantis, but Trac has more integrated > > features and is far more manageable. > > > Thanks, > > > IBBoard > > > On Dec 26, 7:27 pm, Noah Kantrowitz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Dec 26, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Noah Kantrowitz wrote: > > >>> No, that sounds about right, or actually on the low end of Trac's > >>> memory usage. A medium sized site will generally use 50-100 MB per > >>> instance. > > >>> --Noah > > >> PS: If you upgrade to python 2.5.3 or 2.5.4 (obviously the latter is > >> better) you should see Trac's steady state usage drop a bit as it > >> includes a major memory allocation fix we found in Python a while > >> ago. > > >> --Noah > > >>> On Dec 26, 2008, at 6:42 AM, IBBoard wrote: > > >>>> Is it possible to lower the memory usage of Trac when used through > >>>> the > >>>> FastCGI method? I've got a VPS server running Lighttpd that has > >>>> been > >>>> running with a reasonable amount of memory free (anything up to > >>>> about > >>>> 50MB of its 128MB limit). After adding Trac it's now running > >>>> close to > >>>> full because Trac is using more memory than anything else (last I > >>>> saw > >>>> it was at 29% while MySQL was only at ~22%). > > >>>> Given that none of my PHP processes get above about 18% and they > >>>> power > >>>> about four or five scripts including CMS and forums it seems a bit > >>>> excessive that my one Python instance for Trac is chewing up two- > >>>> fifths of my server's memory. > > >>>> I've tried running Trac as a daemon and getting Lighttpd to proxy > >>>> the > >>>> requests to it, but it seemed much slower than FastCGI. > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> IBBoard --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
