Process Size Increase

Hi,
While stress testing our application we found increase in the process size. When we run our application for 5 hrs+ the size increases by 1MB+. We used the pmap -x , and it shows the increase in the heap.
We used purify and sun workshop for finding the memory leak . Both of them show no memory leak. They do show increase in the MIU/Live memory. The way we do our test is in continous cycles. We do same set of operations in every cycle. When we started the application it was 30MB and when we did first cycle it increased to 68 MB. The heap increases by 1MB every 5hrs. After 250 cycles it has increased 10MB.
Any idea why the heap keep on increasing? Is there any way to reclaim the memory?
Thanks,
Meena

Hello,
It seems that your program has some "memory overuse" problems.
Memory overuse occurs when the program always allocates some new memory blocks on the heap (new, malloc) but never deletes them. Most of the time, these blocks are not "memory leaks" because the pointers on these blocks still exist, so that a garbage collector does not solve the issue.
The classical example is a linked list that always grows...
The only way to solve this, IMHO, is to track the memory in-use before and after processing.
Using Rational purify, you can call purify_all_inuse() to see all blocks inuse or purify_new_inuse() to see the new allocated blocks. Do this before and after processing, then check what is different.
Then you will have to understand why these blocks have been allocated, and then correct the problem.
Good luck,

Similar Messages

How to increase JVM Process size for WebLogic running SOA Applications.

Hi,
I believe 32 Bit OS can address up to 4GB memory so theoretically 32 Bit JVM can use 4GB but practical convention is 2GB as other 2GB is used by OS itself and also this default JVM Process size is set somewhere and I also believe that if JVM is 32 bit on 64Bit OS even though JVM will run on 32Bit Virtual Machine so JVM does not know that it is 64Bit OS in that case again it can use max Process default size up to 2GB.
And for 64Bit JVM, I can allocate more than 4GB depend on my available RAM size to Xmx, MaxPermSize parameters in java.exe file and after that I can set the same value in “setSOADomainEnv.cmd” or to “setDomainEnv.cmd” file.
But I am 99% sure by just assigning more memory value to Xmx, MaxPermSize in “setSOADomainEnv.cmd” file only won’t work (not setting Xmx in java.exe), if it would have worked then in my case when I was assigning 1536 to Xmx in “setSOADomainEnv.cmd” file then why it was showing out of memory error. I think that is because it was only taking default 2GB for my 32 Bit JVM not considering 3GB or 4GB. So i think i have to change default memory size what JVM can use (<http://www.wikihow.com/Increase-Java-Memory-in-Windows-7> but i am using windows 8 so for that I don’t know the option to change this default Process Size)
I also believe that first JVM start and before start it check how much memory it can use from it’s own –Xmx parameter in some ware configuration or java.exe file and after that it allocate that much size of JVM Process Memory in RAM then after it loads Weblogic or Java Applications in its (Heap + Non-heap + Native Area) which are parts of JVM Process memory
I read post on :< http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3143579/how-can-jvm-use-more-than-4gb-of-memory > and < http://alvinalexander.com/blog/post/java/java-xmx-xms-memory-heap-size-control >
All used :
java -Xmx64m -classpath ".:${THE_CLASSPATH}" ${PROGRAM_NAME}
java –Xmx6g //command which will call java/JVM interpreter which will hold –Xmx parameter to set Heap size for JVM
before JVM comes in memory (JVM process memory)
now my question is can I manually open any configuration file or java.exe same like “setSOADomainEnv.cmd” or “setDomainEnv.cmd” (I know since java.exe is exe I can’t open simply but I want similar work around)
so that I don’t need to type java –Xmx6g every time when I run weblogic (and then later I can change weblogic “setDomainEnv.cmd” Xmx and PermSize to more than default size 4GB to 5GB or 6GB in the case of 64Bit OS)
Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding.
Thanks.

These days the VM will detect a "server" machine and set up the memory appropriate for that.
You can create a simple java console application and have it print the memory settings (find the appropriate java class fort that.)
There is of course the possibility that your application is running out of memory because it is doing something wrong and not because the VM doesn't have enough memory. You can force that in a test setup by LOWERING the maximum amount of memory and thus making it more likely that an out of memory exception will occur.

Will app sizes increase across the board because of the new iPad?

After the release of the new iPad on Wednesday, most apps figure to update their capabilities accommodate the new iPad's boosted resolution. And it appears that this process will result in an appreciable — if not significant — increase in app size. For example, Apple's Find My Friends app has gone from 14MB to 18MB in an update optimized for the new iPad Retina display. GarageBand went from 768MB to 801MB. Obviously, for users who download lots of apps (like me), these app size increases represent a strong argument against purchasing a new iPad with the minimum capacity of 16GB. What do you think?

People seem to be focusing on the size creep in apps, however, this is likely to be functionality driven more than due to the display for most apps. The real driver that I have found wrt storage space is videos. Now with the new display it is likely that people will move more to HD videos from iTunes, etc.. and this will be what drives the increase in storage required.
If your photos are compressed JPEGs then what you'll have to think about is how many videos you want to carry. There is also the possibility that with the new screen resolution that people start to store pictures at higher resolutions also which might drive storage.
Either way HD is a canny move by Apple as it will ultimately drive revenue growth through iTunes ;-)

Why does performance decrease as cache size increases?

Hi,
We have some very serious performance problems with our
database. I have been trying to help by tuning the cache size,
but the results are the opposite of what I expect.
To create new databases with my data set, it takes about
8200 seconds with a 32 Meg cache. Performance gets worse
as the cache size increases, even though the cache hit rate
improves!
I'd appreciate any insight as to why this is happening.
32 Meg does not seem like such a large cache that it would
strain some system limitation.
Here are some stats from db_stat -m
Specified a 128 Meg cache size - test took 16076 seconds
160MB 1KB 900B Total cache size
1 Number of caches
1 Maximum number of caches
160MB 8KB Pool individual cache size
0 Maximum memory-mapped file size
0 Maximum open file descriptors
0 Maximum sequential buffer writes
0 Sleep after writing maximum sequential buffers
0 Requested pages mapped into the process' address space
34M Requested pages found in the cache (93%)
2405253 Requested pages not found in the cache
36084 Pages created in the cache
2400631 Pages read into the cache
9056561 Pages written from the cache to the backing file
2394135 Clean pages forced from the cache
2461 Dirty pages forced from the cache
0 Dirty pages written by trickle-sync thread
40048 Current total page count
40048 Current clean page count
0 Current dirty page count
16381 Number of hash buckets used for page location
39M Total number of times hash chains searched for a page (39021639)
11 The longest hash chain searched for a page
85M Total number of hash chain entries checked for page (85570570)
Specified a 64 Meg cache size - test took 10694 seconds
80MB 1KB 900B Total cache size
1 Number of caches
1 Maximum number of caches
80MB 8KB Pool individual cache size
0 Maximum memory-mapped file size
0 Maximum open file descriptors
0 Maximum sequential buffer writes
0 Sleep after writing maximum sequential buffers
0 Requested pages mapped into the process' address space
31M Requested pages found in the cache (83%)
6070891 Requested pages not found in the cache
36104 Pages created in the cache
6066249 Pages read into the cache
9063432 Pages written from the cache to the backing file
5963647 Clean pages forced from the cache
118611 Dirty pages forced from the cache
0 Dirty pages written by trickle-sync thread
20024 Current total page count
20024 Current clean page count
0 Current dirty page count
8191 Number of hash buckets used for page location
42M Total number of times hash chains searched for a page (42687277)
12 The longest hash chain searched for a page
98M Total number of hash chain entries checked for page (98696325)
Specified a 32 Meg cache size - test took 8231 seconds
40MB 1KB 900B Total cache size
1 Number of caches
1 Maximum number of caches
40MB 8KB Pool individual cache size
0 Maximum memory-mapped file size
0 Maximum open file descriptors
0 Maximum sequential buffer writes
0 Sleep after writing maximum sequential buffers
0 Requested pages mapped into the process' address space
26M Requested pages found in the cache (70%)
10M Requested pages not found in the cache (10812846)
35981 Pages created in the cache
10M Pages read into the cache (10808327)
9200273 Pages written from the cache to the backing file
9335574 Clean pages forced from the cache
1498651 Dirty pages forced from the cache
0 Dirty pages written by trickle-sync thread
10012 Current total page count
10012 Current clean page count
0 Current dirty page count
4099 Number of hash buckets used for page location
47M Total number of times hash chains searched for a page (47429232)
13 The longest hash chain searched for a page
118M Total number of hash chain entries checked for page (118218066)
vmstat says that a few minutes into the test, the box is
spending 80-90% of its time in iowait. That worsens as
the test continues.
System and test info follows
We have 10 databases (in 10 files) sharing a database
environment. We are using a hash table since we expect
data accesses to be pretty much random.
We are using the default cache type: a memory mapped file.
Using DB_PRIVATE did not improve performance.
The database environment created with these flags:
DB_CREATE | DB_THREAD | DB_INIT_CDB | DB_INIT_MPOOL
The databases are opened with only the DB_CREATE flag.
There is only one process accessing the db. In my tests,
only one thread access the db, doing only writes.
We do not use transactions.
My data set is about 550 Meg of plain ASCII text data.
13 million inserts and 2 million deletes. Key size is
32 bytes, data size is 4 bytes.
BDB 4.6.21 on linux.
1 Gig of RAM
Filesystem = ext3 page size = 4K
The test system is not doing anything else while I am
testing.

Surprising result: I tried closing the db handles with DB_NOSYNC and performance
got worse. Using a 32 Meg cache, it took about twice as long to run my test:
15800 seconds using DB->close(DB_NOSYNC) vs 8200 seconds using DB->close(0).
Here is some data from db_stat -m when using DB_NOSYNC:
40MB 1KB 900B Total cache size
1 Number of caches
1 Maximum number of caches
40MB 8KB Pool individual cache size
0 Maximum memory-mapped file size
0 Maximum open file descriptors
0 Maximum sequential buffer writes
0 Sleep after writing maximum sequential buffers
0 Requested pages mapped into the process' address space
26M Requested pages found in the cache (70%)
10M Requested pages not found in the cache (10811882)
44864 Pages created in the cache
10M Pages read into the cache (10798480)
7380761 Pages written from the cache to the backing file
3452500 Clean pages forced from the cache
7380761 Dirty pages forced from the cache
0 Dirty pages written by trickle-sync thread
10012 Current total page count
5001 Current clean page count
5011 Current dirty page count
4099 Number of hash buckets used for page location
47M Total number of times hash chains searched for a page (47428268)
13 The longest hash chain searched for a page
118M Total number of hash chain entries checked for page (118169805)
It looks like not flushing the cache regularly is forcing a lot more
dirty pages (and fewer clean pages) from the cache. Forcing a
dirty page out is slower than forcing a clean page out, of course.
Is this result reasonable?
I suppose I could try to sync less often than I have been, but more often
than never to see if that makes any difference.
When I close or sync one db handle, I assume it flushes only that portion
of the dbenv's cache, not the entire cache, right? Is there an API I can
call that would sync the entire dbenv cache (besides closing the dbenv)?
Are there any other suggestions?
Thanks,
Eric

Why are frame sizes increasing after editing with Nik plug-ins?

I’m using the Nik Collection of plug-ins with Aperture, and have discovered that the frame size of the resulting edits always end up larger than the original - sometimes much larger.
The original image starts as 4592 x 3448 but after editing, the longest side of the resulting image is typically over 5000, 6000 or even 7000 pixels.
I recently worked on a cropped image that started at 4138 x 2759 and ended up at 7361 x 4908, after editing with a combination of Dfine, Viveza, Color Efex + Silver Efex. If I export a version during the editing process, and then carry out futher editing, the frame size increases again.
I’m exporting from Aperture using the TIFF - Original Size (16 bit) setting.
Can anyone tell me what’s going on here? I’m concerned that the quality of the images is being compromised by the enlargement.
I'm using the latest set of Nik plug-ins, with Aperture 3.2.4 on a MBP running 10.6.8

Keli
In order to open Aperture in 32-bit mode by default you can right-click on the application icon, select "Get Info" and check the box marked "Open In 32-bit Mode" (or you can continue to run it by default in 64-bit mode and just get forced to re-open the app anytime you need to use plug-ins that can only run in 32-bit mode).
hope this helps!
Raf

Acrobat Pro 9 file size increases 10x

When I edit a pdf file in Acrobat Pro 9, even the smallest edit like the date, my document size increases by 10 fold. Another user, on the same version, makes the same edit and it does not change much at all. I have uninstalled/reinstalled 3 times, tried Reduce File Size and many other things but nothing seems to work. Has anyone else experienced this same thing and found a resolution?

That is my bad...I must have been in a hurry trying to beat the snow storm and misposted. How can I move or delete and get this in the correct forum?
Thanks

PDF size increase

When I edit an image in PS that I extracted from Acrobat, why does the meg size increase with each edit?

I tried that after posting this question and the size was back at the original size, 19mb. I had extracted an image from an ad, color corrected an area, chose Save in PS, closed the image and watched the pdf in Acrobat refresh itself with the edit. I then chose Save in Acrobat, extracted the image into PS again and did another edit. That's when I saw the mb size increase. I can only do one edit in PS and then I have to save it back into Acrobat. If I try to do several different color corrections in PS and choose Save, a dialogue box opens that asks me what I would like to name this temp pdf that saves into a Temp folder. When I was making an edit, saving in PS and then closing that image to save the pdf as the same name, the mb size increased each time until it was up to 334 mb ! I am using Acrobat 7 Pro and PS CS 5.
Thanks for the reply.

File sizes increase in StarOffice 8

I've got a letter I send out about once a month, just changing dates in the contents for each edition. It has a linked .jpg file as background.
In StarOffice 7 the .sxw file size is 8 Kb.
In StarOffice 8 the size has leapt to 44 Kb, whether I save it in .sxw or .odt format.
Why?

I find that file sizes increase both with text documents and with spreadsheets, sometimes by a great deal. One of the reasons I switched from 5.2 to 7 was the much smaller file sizes, since I keep my weekly back-ups on floppies (and am a stingy sort of fellow generally). But I had to run 7 and 5.2 together, since 7 does not handle Sanskrit/Hindi founts (the SO "help" team just asked a whole lot of questions and then disappeared). So now I have (on Windows) 5.2, 7 and 8. I have still not checked if 8 handles these founts. If it does, I can remove 5.2. For the rest, 8 does not seem to offer any advantage over 7 -- not counting the data base, which I have still to look into. File size, in my view, goes against it.

Index size increased after import

hi i mentioned already the index creation problem when i am trying to create index using script after import of table.So droped the table and created table using script and index also without data,then i started to import at tablelevel with indexes=n then ia m importing data from the production database.
The size of the 2 indexes in production is 750 and 1200 mb each in test db both index size increased around double 1200 and 1700 mb each.I used same script in both db.Why this is increased here i took the export with compress=y full database export.Why the index size increased? when i created the index with initial extent and next extent size respective 800 and 100 mb.Whether is it the reason?
with regards
ramya

i gave initial 1000 and next 100 for the index size around 1.1 gb in production but here in test why this became around 1.7 gb,eventhough the pct increase is 50 it should come around 1.3 maximum.Whether it will give any performance problem
wiht regards
ramya

Why make process size so huge on WindowsXP?

It seems like no matter how much memory my application uses. For example I can make a very simple app that just shows a JFrame. Runtime.getRuntime.totalMemory() claims that I am using 4MB, which seems like a lot for a simple frame window. TaskManager says that the application (JRE) is using 18MB. The JVM process size is over 4X larger. Is there anything that the developer can do to reduce the process size?
I realize that the JRE is loading classes, spawning its own threads which require heap space and stack space, but the perception that most people get when looking at TaskManager is "Wow there must be a memory leak in that application it using 80MB." I know because my manager has said some close to that with a few expletives thrown in. This makes it hard for me to convince him that Java is a great choice for developing desktop applications.
I think that instead of implementing new language features like auto-boxing and spending time developing Timbuktu language support, this needs to be addressed. Otherwise I think many desktop application developers will have the same difficulty and may forced to look at using C++ with GTK or Mono.

Remember that a computer has much more memory at it's disposal than
just RAM as modern operating system use swap memory to give greater memory. Have you tried
running with the -client command line option.hm, my machine is 512MB and since I've started running eclipse there has been a definite improvement in disk thrashing (sporadically) when switching between applications..
as a corporate user, i get to request a machine upgrade sometime next year (yay!) but someone pointed out to me that this isn't the typical scenario - but guess its just a few years away when this really doesn't matter so much
I tried the -Xmx and -mx options. The process size is not affected, only Runtime.getRuntime().getMaxMemory() is affectedah, ok - must have been confused there..
i found this bug:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4864304
which seems to have become an umbrella bug for various swing memory issues - it does look like that have been real improvements in 1.5
eg my own quick test - running SwingSet2 (java1.4 version) with both 1.4.2_04 and an early beta of 1.5 gives around a 10 - 15MB difference which does seem a real good result (its also faster..) but the absolute measurement is still around 60MB - i think maybe its something to do with font cacheing - not being able to rely on the underlying OS's font rendering capabilities
another relevent thing could be jvm sharing:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4416624
which i think the point about is that it mitigates the per-jvm memory costs - so you only take that hit once..

Maximum process size !

Hi guys !
What is the maximum virtual process size in Solaris 8 64 bit. I know in 32 bit Solaris it is 2GB.
I'm troubleshooting a Java out of memory error.
Thanks,
- Solarised

Extending the size of JRE Heap is not always the answer, you will need to start tuning your garbage collection to free off more memory on a more regular basis. Also I you are going to extend the size of your JRE Heap then ensure you get the minimum and maximum parameters correct, I would suggest you set them to the same size. Last point to remember, only calculate the size of your JRE Heap from the available memory, not the total memory.

Mailbox sizes increase dramatically after migration to exchange 2013

After I migrate mailboxes from exchange 2010 mailbox to 2013, the size increases.
For example -
On exchange 2010 I run get-mailboxstatistics: TotalItemSize : 6.706 GB
On exchange 2013: TotalItemSize : 9.374 GB
Anand_N

Hi Anand,
Please note that the actual space used by the mailbox database will not increase. This only refers to the attribution of space used by each individual mailbox. Actually, this happens due to the inclusion of all item properties into quota calculations, providing
a more accurate computation of space consumed by items within their mailbox. However, you can adjust mailbox size and increase mailbox quota by 40% before moving.
You can follow below cmdlet in order to increase "ProhibitSendQuota" value for all users that are not using the database quota defaults:
Get-Mailbox -ResultSize Unlimited -Filter {UseDatabaseQuotaDefaults -eq $False} |
Where {$_.ProhibitSendQuota -ne "unlimited"} | ForEach {Set-Mailbox $_ -ProhibitSendQuota "$($($_.ProhibitSendQuota).Value.ToMB() * 1.4)MB" -WhatIf}
You can have a look on this link to prevent the cause :
Mailbox migration from 2010 to 2013
Hope, this will be helpful for you.

The font size increases automatically and the window will not let me scroll

When I launch 3.6.12, two things happen: The font size increases by itself to the largest font available, and the scroll bar doesn't work. I can scroll down the page, but as soon as I stop, the window resets to the top of the page.
Running Win XP SP 3.

Check that you do not run Firefox in compatibility mode or with a reduced screen resolution.
Make sure that you do not run Firefox in compatibility mode.
You can check that in the "Compatibility" tab in the Properties via the right-click context menu of the Firefox desktop shortcut.
Make sure that all items are deselected in the "Compatibility" tab of the Properties window.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/learnmore/appcompat.mspx

Why does PDF file size increase each time I "save" tagging tasks?

Why does PDF file size increase each time I "save" tagging tasks?
Given:
1) I'm running Acrobat Pro 11.0.07 (this is most current version)
2) My file size starts at 750mb and ends up 15mb when finished tagging.
3) Only certain documents experience this increase, i.e., no visible pattern of document characteristics
4) PDF's are not full of images...in fact, mostly <H1> <H2> <H3> <P> <Figure> alt text, ect.
5) Occurs with text PDF's and/or fillable forms (again, does not happen to all documents...only some)
6) File increase occurs incrementally as tagging tasks are performed; i.e., each new save increases file size a few megabytes.
7) Occurs whether I "save" or "save as"
8) Difficult to optimize these files without corruption
9) I'm running Mac OS 10.9.4 (this is most current version)

Thank you so much for responding! I've been experimenting with the SAVE AS vs. SAVE for the past few days...and you are correct. It's funny because I've been tagging files for 2 years and never noticed this. Probably b/c I use both methods depending on the tagging tasks...some are more complicated than others and should not be overwritten. In those cases I SAVE AS new file.
I love this forum...thank you again!

DB Size increase after calculation

When I calculate my DB its size increases abnormaly. If I export all the data and import it again, the DB size shrinks to 50% of its former size. Why does that happen?Dimensions:Time (Dense)Measures (Dense)Organization (Sparse)Products(Sparse)Value Type (Sparse) VT_CHF VT_EUR FX_EURMy calc script is:(IF(VT_CHF<>0 AND VT_CHF<>#MISSING)VT_EUR = VT_CHF/MEA_DUMMY->ORG_DUMMY->PROD_DUMMY->FX_EUR;ENDIF;)

This usually happens if you have committed access on. Your database can effectively double in size because when a block is calculated, a new block is created and then the pointer is changed from the old block to the new one. The old blocks stay in your pag file. To fix this, I changed to uncommitted access and then set a number in the commit blocks field to represent the number of blocks of redundant data that the database will retain. The higher the number, the more your database will grow, but a low number will impact on calc times if the block sizes are small.

Process Size Increase

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for