maximum .net process can use

[Zen]

Re: maximum .net process can use

thanks for the information. By the way, I'm not clear on how the author of
the article came up with the 800MB as a good threshold for "Process\Privat e
Bytes"? I restructured my code to reduce memory consumption peak (it's long
to explain it but it including removing a website from the server) and it's
running fine even when the "Private Bytes" goes up to 1.3G. I suspect that
the MEM_RESERVE regions go up for each additional website as well but I
still don't get the 800MB threshold, could someone explain? Thanks!

Also, I was setting the memory max to 80% instead of 60% hoping to solve the
problem. I'm changing it back down to 65% now.


"Neyah" <Neyah@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
news:2A019F44-5E44-4435-8374-552A157D7B7D@mi crosoft.com...[color=blue]
> See this info (it's long)
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...nitor_perf.asp
>
> A quote:
> First, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption begins to
> increase dramatically when "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is within 600 MB of the
> virtual address space limit (generally 2 GB), and secondly, tests have
> shown
> that "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is often larger than "Process\Privat e Bytes"
> by
> no more than 600 MB. This difference is due in part to the MEM_RESERVE
> regions maintained by the GC, allowing it to quickly commit more memory
> when
> needed. Taken together this implies that when "Process\Privat e Bytes"
> exceeds
> 800 MB, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption increases.
>
> Long story short, asp.net 1.1 with has a high likelyhood of experiencing
> OutOfMemoryExce ptions once the aspnet_wp.exe process exceeds 800 MB due to
> address space limitations and additional reserve by the GC.
>
> The below applies to IIS 5.0. For IIS 6.0, you would set this up from IIS
> Manager Properties -> Recycling -> Maximum used memory. But one of your
> other posts indicated you were using Win 2k server, so you don't have IIS
> 6.0.
>
> The memorylimit defaults to 60% of available RAM, which is why you didn't
> have any issues while you only had 1 GB. Now that you have 2 GB,
> aspnet_wp.exe won't recycle until it reaches 1.2 GB, which is over the 800
> MB
> problem point. You'll want to set the memoryLimit in the your
> machine.config
> setting for processModel to a value that doesn't exceed 800 MB. For a 2
> GB
> machine, 39% will do the trick.
>
> If you have enough RAM to where you have included the /3GB switch to
> boot.ini, you can use a value that calculates out to 1,800 MB instead.
>
> I'd also recommend lowering the timout and idelTimout values from
> Infinite,
> to a lower value. This will allow the aspnet_wp.exe process to actually
> recycle.
>
> "Zen" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Hi,
>>
>> My production machine has 2G of memory, when aspnet_wp.exe goes up to
>> about
>> ~1.2G of memory usage, I start get out-of-memory exception. Other
>> processes
>> don't use as much memory and I added all the peak memory usage of all the
>> processes (including aspnet_wp.exe), it goes up to no more than 1.5.
>>
>> How is that possible? Would anyone know please help? thanks!
>>
>>
>>[/color][/color]

[Willy Denoyette [MVP]]

Re: maximum .net process can use

Zen,

You should read the article carefully, the threshold is an empirical one
based on experiments using a typical application on a version (v1.1) of the
framework. But it's nothing else than a (dirty) trick, it sets the threshold
at such a low level that it forces the process to recycle before you
possibly have a chance to encounter an OOM exception, it's 'dirty' because
it may hide a bug (or design flaw) in your code and it side-steps the LOH
fragmentation problem typical for v1.0 and v1.1 (non SP1) of the framework.

You did change your code to reduce the memory consumption, but still your
memory consumption reaches 1.3 GB, so I guess you did refactor your code
such that there is less (or no?) fragmentation of the LOH. But again, once
the heap becomes too fragmented you are at risk for OOM's. Now the point is
what do you prefer, process recycling or OOM's, for me the two are equally
bad, you didn't pay for 2GB of memory to only use 60% of it didn't you?
So, I repeat it again, profile your web application take a look at the
allocation pattern, that's the only way to prevent/reduce fragmentation in a
server like application. If you can eliminate fragmentation completely, your
application will live a long, well performing and healthy life :-), if you
can't eliminate fragmentation, you will have to live with process recycling
or OOM's, the choice is yours.

Willy.





"Zen" <zen@nononospam .com> wrote in message
news:OYrZZDRHGH A.1088@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
| thanks for the information. By the way, I'm not clear on how the author
of
| the article came up with the 800MB as a good threshold for
"Process\Privat e
| Bytes"? I restructured my code to reduce memory consumption peak (it's
long
| to explain it but it including removing a website from the server) and
it's
| running fine even when the "Private Bytes" goes up to 1.3G. I suspect
that
| the MEM_RESERVE regions go up for each additional website as well but I
| still don't get the 800MB threshold, could someone explain? Thanks!
|
| Also, I was setting the memory max to 80% instead of 60% hoping to solve
the
| problem. I'm changing it back down to 65% now.
|
|
| "Neyah" <Neyah@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
| news:2A019F44-5E44-4435-8374-552A157D7B7D@mi crosoft.com...
| > See this info (it's long)
| >

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnaspp/html/monitor_perf.asp

| >
| > A quote:
| > First, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption begins to
| > increase dramatically when "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is within 600 MB of
the
| > virtual address space limit (generally 2 GB), and secondly, tests have
| > shown
| > that "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is often larger than "Process\Privat e
Bytes"
| > by
| > no more than 600 MB. This difference is due in part to the MEM_RESERVE
| > regions maintained by the GC, allowing it to quickly commit more memory
| > when
| > needed. Taken together this implies that when "Process\Privat e Bytes"
| > exceeds
| > 800 MB, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption
increases.
| >
| > Long story short, asp.net 1.1 with has a high likelyhood of experiencing
| > OutOfMemoryExce ptions once the aspnet_wp.exe process exceeds 800 MB due
to
| > address space limitations and additional reserve by the GC.
| >
| > The below applies to IIS 5.0. For IIS 6.0, you would set this up from
IIS
| > Manager Properties -> Recycling -> Maximum used memory. But one of your
| > other posts indicated you were using Win 2k server, so you don't have
IIS
| > 6.0.
| >
| > The memorylimit defaults to 60% of available RAM, which is why you
didn't
| > have any issues while you only had 1 GB. Now that you have 2 GB,
| > aspnet_wp.exe won't recycle until it reaches 1.2 GB, which is over the
800
| > MB
| > problem point. You'll want to set the memoryLimit in the your
| > machine.config
| > setting for processModel to a value that doesn't exceed 800 MB. For a 2
| > GB
| > machine, 39% will do the trick.
| >
| > If you have enough RAM to where you have included the /3GB switch to
| > boot.ini, you can use a value that calculates out to 1,800 MB instead.
| >
| > I'd also recommend lowering the timout and idelTimout values from
| > Infinite,
| > to a lower value. This will allow the aspnet_wp.exe process to actually
| > recycle.
| >
| > "Zen" wrote:
| >
| >> Hi,
| >>
| >> My production machine has 2G of memory, when aspnet_wp.exe goes up to
| >> about
| >> ~1.2G of memory usage, I start get out-of-memory exception. Other
| >> processes
| >> don't use as much memory and I added all the peak memory usage of all
the
| >> processes (including aspnet_wp.exe), it goes up to no more than 1.5.
| >>
| >> How is that possible? Would anyone know please help? thanks!
| >>
| >>
| >>
|
|

[Neyah]

Re: maximum .net process can use

I didn't indicate that Zen should not profile the application and attempt to
reduce memory consumption. I merely replied to the original question of "How
is this possible?" and directed him to an article that answered the question.

Zen, the relevant portion of the article where they indicated to use 800 MB
is as follows:
First, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption begins to
increase dramatically when "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is within 600 MB of the
virtual address space limit (generally 2 GB), and secondly, tests have shown
that "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is often larger than "Process\Privat e Bytes" by
no more than 600 MB. This difference is due in part to the MEM_RESERVE
regions maintained by the GC, allowing it to quickly commit more memory when
needed. Taken together this implies that when "Process\Privat e Bytes" exceeds
800 MB, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption increases.

You're not really out of memory, you're just out of address space for the
worker process. This could be solved by utilizing the /3GB switch or
switching to a 64 bit machine. You indicated that you don't have enough RAM
to use /3GB, and purchasing a new machine isn't necessarily a real option.

Please note that 2.0 has many optimizations to the way GC works, including
the ability to reuse a fragmented LOH. You can run your 1.1 web application
under 2.0 without having to recompile simply by going into IIS, going into
ASP.NET tab in the properties for the affected IIS application directory, and
changing the dropdown for ASP.NET Version from 1.1.4322 to 2.0.50727.

If you aren't willing or aren't able to have 2.0 installed on your web
server, I would say that your only option is to live with process recycling.
I wouldn't consider constant OOMs with no way to recover from this state as a
valid "choice".

"Willy Denoyette [MVP]" wrote:
[color=blue]
> Zen,
>
> You should read the article carefully, the threshold is an empirical one
> based on experiments using a typical application on a version (v1.1) of the
> framework. But it's nothing else than a (dirty) trick, it sets the threshold
> at such a low level that it forces the process to recycle before you
> possibly have a chance to encounter an OOM exception, it's 'dirty' because
> it may hide a bug (or design flaw) in your code and it side-steps the LOH
> fragmentation problem typical for v1.0 and v1.1 (non SP1) of the framework.
>
> You did change your code to reduce the memory consumption, but still your
> memory consumption reaches 1.3 GB, so I guess you did refactor your code
> such that there is less (or no?) fragmentation of the LOH. But again, once
> the heap becomes too fragmented you are at risk for OOM's. Now the point is
> what do you prefer, process recycling or OOM's, for me the two are equally
> bad, you didn't pay for 2GB of memory to only use 60% of it didn't you?
> So, I repeat it again, profile your web application take a look at the
> allocation pattern, that's the only way to prevent/reduce fragmentation in a
> server like application. If you can eliminate fragmentation completely, your
> application will live a long, well performing and healthy life :-), if you
> can't eliminate fragmentation, you will have to live with process recycling
> or OOM's, the choice is yours.
>
> Willy.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Zen" <zen@nononospam .com> wrote in message
> news:OYrZZDRHGH A.1088@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
> | thanks for the information. By the way, I'm not clear on how the author
> of
> | the article came up with the 800MB as a good threshold for
> "Process\Privat e
> | Bytes"? I restructured my code to reduce memory consumption peak (it's
> long
> | to explain it but it including removing a website from the server) and
> it's
> | running fine even when the "Private Bytes" goes up to 1.3G. I suspect
> that
> | the MEM_RESERVE regions go up for each additional website as well but I
> | still don't get the 800MB threshold, could someone explain? Thanks!
> |
> | Also, I was setting the memory max to 80% instead of 60% hoping to solve
> the
> | problem. I'm changing it back down to 65% now.
> |
> |
> | "Neyah" <Neyah@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
> | news:2A019F44-5E44-4435-8374-552A157D7B7D@mi crosoft.com...
> | > See this info (it's long)
> | >
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...nitor_perf.asp
> | >
> | > A quote:
> | > First, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption begins to
> | > increase dramatically when "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is within 600 MB of
> the
> | > virtual address space limit (generally 2 GB), and secondly, tests have
> | > shown
> | > that "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is often larger than "Process\Privat e
> Bytes"
> | > by
> | > no more than 600 MB. This difference is due in part to the MEM_RESERVE
> | > regions maintained by the GC, allowing it to quickly commit more memory
> | > when
> | > needed. Taken together this implies that when "Process\Privat e Bytes"
> | > exceeds
> | > 800 MB, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption
> increases.
> | >
> | > Long story short, asp.net 1.1 with has a high likelyhood of experiencing
> | > OutOfMemoryExce ptions once the aspnet_wp.exe process exceeds 800 MB due
> to
> | > address space limitations and additional reserve by the GC.
> | >
> | > The below applies to IIS 5.0. For IIS 6.0, you would set this up from
> IIS
> | > Manager Properties -> Recycling -> Maximum used memory. But one of your
> | > other posts indicated you were using Win 2k server, so you don't have
> IIS
> | > 6.0.
> | >
> | > The memorylimit defaults to 60% of available RAM, which is why you
> didn't
> | > have any issues while you only had 1 GB. Now that you have 2 GB,
> | > aspnet_wp.exe won't recycle until it reaches 1.2 GB, which is over the
> 800
> | > MB
> | > problem point. You'll want to set the memoryLimit in the your
> | > machine.config
> | > setting for processModel to a value that doesn't exceed 800 MB. For a 2
> | > GB
> | > machine, 39% will do the trick.
> | >
> | > If you have enough RAM to where you have included the /3GB switch to
> | > boot.ini, you can use a value that calculates out to 1,800 MB instead.
> | >
> | > I'd also recommend lowering the timout and idelTimout values from
> | > Infinite,
> | > to a lower value. This will allow the aspnet_wp.exe process to actually
> | > recycle.
> | >
> | > "Zen" wrote:
> | >
> | >> Hi,
> | >>
> | >> My production machine has 2G of memory, when aspnet_wp.exe goes up to
> | >> about
> | >> ~1.2G of memory usage, I start get out-of-memory exception. Other
> | >> processes
> | >> don't use as much memory and I added all the peak memory usage of all
> the
> | >> processes (including aspnet_wp.exe), it goes up to no more than 1.5.
> | >>
> | >> How is that possible? Would anyone know please help? thanks!
> | >>
> | >>
> | >>
> |
> |
>
>
>[/color]

[Willy Denoyette [MVP]]

Re: maximum .net process can use

Inline

Willy.

"Neyah" <Neyah@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
news:35BB8BE3-5BA9-41D1-8122-CCF988684E72@mi crosoft.com...
|I didn't indicate that Zen should not profile the application and attempt
to
| reduce memory consumption. I merely replied to the original question of
"How
| is this possible?" and directed him to an article that answered the
question.
|

Hmm ... I merely replied (to Zen) to say that the article is quite old, it's
based on a version of the CLR that had problems with LOH fragmentation, and
the most importantly, that you should not take such artices as gospel just
use it as a reference but no more, you have to measure/profile yourself (do
your homework), your application might be totally different with different
load patterns and allocation profiles. But, before you do make sure you know
what and how to measure, you should know how Windows virtual memory system
works, how things like Physical RAM, address spaces and virtual memory
relate, and what the role of the GC is in this whole story.


Willy.

[Zen]

Re: maximum .net process can use

When memoryLimit threshold is reached, does Aspnet process know to call
GC.GetTotalMemo ry(true) to ensure that it's a real violation of the limit
before recycling itself?

thanks!

"Neyah" <Neyah@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
news:35BB8BE3-5BA9-41D1-8122-CCF988684E72@mi crosoft.com...[color=blue]
>I didn't indicate that Zen should not profile the application and attempt
>to
> reduce memory consumption. I merely replied to the original question of
> "How
> is this possible?" and directed him to an article that answered the
> question.
>
> Zen, the relevant portion of the article where they indicated to use 800
> MB
> is as follows:
> First, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption begins to
> increase dramatically when "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is within 600 MB of the
> virtual address space limit (generally 2 GB), and secondly, tests have
> shown
> that "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is often larger than "Process\Privat e Bytes"
> by
> no more than 600 MB. This difference is due in part to the MEM_RESERVE
> regions maintained by the GC, allowing it to quickly commit more memory
> when
> needed. Taken together this implies that when "Process\Privat e Bytes"
> exceeds
> 800 MB, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption increases.
>
> You're not really out of memory, you're just out of address space for the
> worker process. This could be solved by utilizing the /3GB switch or
> switching to a 64 bit machine. You indicated that you don't have enough
> RAM
> to use /3GB, and purchasing a new machine isn't necessarily a real option.
>
> Please note that 2.0 has many optimizations to the way GC works, including
> the ability to reuse a fragmented LOH. You can run your 1.1 web
> application
> under 2.0 without having to recompile simply by going into IIS, going into
> ASP.NET tab in the properties for the affected IIS application directory,
> and
> changing the dropdown for ASP.NET Version from 1.1.4322 to 2.0.50727.
>
> If you aren't willing or aren't able to have 2.0 installed on your web
> server, I would say that your only option is to live with process
> recycling.
> I wouldn't consider constant OOMs with no way to recover from this state
> as a
> valid "choice".
>
> "Willy Denoyette [MVP]" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Zen,
>>
>> You should read the article carefully, the threshold is an empirical one
>> based on experiments using a typical application on a version (v1.1) of
>> the
>> framework. But it's nothing else than a (dirty) trick, it sets the
>> threshold
>> at such a low level that it forces the process to recycle before you
>> possibly have a chance to encounter an OOM exception, it's 'dirty'
>> because
>> it may hide a bug (or design flaw) in your code and it side-steps the LOH
>> fragmentation problem typical for v1.0 and v1.1 (non SP1) of the
>> framework.
>>
>> You did change your code to reduce the memory consumption, but still
>> your
>> memory consumption reaches 1.3 GB, so I guess you did refactor your code
>> such that there is less (or no?) fragmentation of the LOH. But again,
>> once
>> the heap becomes too fragmented you are at risk for OOM's. Now the point
>> is
>> what do you prefer, process recycling or OOM's, for me the two are
>> equally
>> bad, you didn't pay for 2GB of memory to only use 60% of it didn't you?
>> So, I repeat it again, profile your web application take a look at the
>> allocation pattern, that's the only way to prevent/reduce fragmentation
>> in a
>> server like application. If you can eliminate fragmentation completely,
>> your
>> application will live a long, well performing and healthy life :-), if
>> you
>> can't eliminate fragmentation, you will have to live with process
>> recycling
>> or OOM's, the choice is yours.
>>
>> Willy.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Zen" <zen@nononospam .com> wrote in message
>> news:OYrZZDRHGH A.1088@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
>> | thanks for the information. By the way, I'm not clear on how the
>> author
>> of
>> | the article came up with the 800MB as a good threshold for
>> "Process\Privat e
>> | Bytes"? I restructured my code to reduce memory consumption peak (it's
>> long
>> | to explain it but it including removing a website from the server) and
>> it's
>> | running fine even when the "Private Bytes" goes up to 1.3G. I suspect
>> that
>> | the MEM_RESERVE regions go up for each additional website as well but I
>> | still don't get the 800MB threshold, could someone explain? Thanks!
>> |
>> | Also, I was setting the memory max to 80% instead of 60% hoping to
>> solve
>> the
>> | problem. I'm changing it back down to 65% now.
>> |
>> |
>> | "Neyah" <Neyah@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
>> | news:2A019F44-5E44-4435-8374-552A157D7B7D@mi crosoft.com...
>> | > See this info (it's long)
>> | >
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...nitor_perf.asp
>> | >
>> | > A quote:
>> | > First, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption begins
>> to
>> | > increase dramatically when "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is within 600 MB
>> of
>> the
>> | > virtual address space limit (generally 2 GB), and secondly, tests
>> have
>> | > shown
>> | > that "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is often larger than "Process\Privat e
>> Bytes"
>> | > by
>> | > no more than 600 MB. This difference is due in part to the
>> MEM_RESERVE
>> | > regions maintained by the GC, allowing it to quickly commit more
>> memory
>> | > when
>> | > needed. Taken together this implies that when "Process\Privat e Bytes"
>> | > exceeds
>> | > 800 MB, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption
>> increases.
>> | >
>> | > Long story short, asp.net 1.1 with has a high likelyhood of
>> experiencing
>> | > OutOfMemoryExce ptions once the aspnet_wp.exe process exceeds 800 MB
>> due
>> to
>> | > address space limitations and additional reserve by the GC.
>> | >
>> | > The below applies to IIS 5.0. For IIS 6.0, you would set this up
>> from
>> IIS
>> | > Manager Properties -> Recycling -> Maximum used memory. But one of
>> your
>> | > other posts indicated you were using Win 2k server, so you don't have
>> IIS
>> | > 6.0.
>> | >
>> | > The memorylimit defaults to 60% of available RAM, which is why you
>> didn't
>> | > have any issues while you only had 1 GB. Now that you have 2 GB,
>> | > aspnet_wp.exe won't recycle until it reaches 1.2 GB, which is over
>> the
>> 800
>> | > MB
>> | > problem point. You'll want to set the memoryLimit in the your
>> | > machine.config
>> | > setting for processModel to a value that doesn't exceed 800 MB. For
>> a 2
>> | > GB
>> | > machine, 39% will do the trick.
>> | >
>> | > If you have enough RAM to where you have included the /3GB switch to
>> | > boot.ini, you can use a value that calculates out to 1,800 MB
>> instead.
>> | >
>> | > I'd also recommend lowering the timout and idelTimout values from
>> | > Infinite,
>> | > to a lower value. This will allow the aspnet_wp.exe process to
>> actually
>> | > recycle.
>> | >
>> | > "Zen" wrote:
>> | >
>> | >> Hi,
>> | >>
>> | >> My production machine has 2G of memory, when aspnet_wp.exe goes up
>> to
>> | >> about
>> | >> ~1.2G of memory usage, I start get out-of-memory exception. Other
>> | >> processes
>> | >> don't use as much memory and I added all the peak memory usage of
>> all
>> the
>> | >> processes (including aspnet_wp.exe), it goes up to no more than 1.5.
>> | >>
>> | >> How is that possible? Would anyone know please help? thanks!
>> | >>
>> | >>
>> | >>
>> |
>> |
>>
>>
>>[/color][/color]

[Willy Denoyette [MVP]]

Re: maximum .net process can use

The worker process is an unmanaged host, it doesn't have to call anything to
know if the threshold has been reached, it calls the OS services (and the
CLR services through the hosting interface) for this and exits when a
threshold is reached or when a deadlock is detected etc...
The aspnet ISAPI dll restarts the process when this happens.
Note also that GC.GetTotalMemo ry only returns the GC allocated memory, and
that's not the threshold we are talking about.

Willy.



"Zen" <zen@nononospam .com> wrote in message
news:O53yVrgHGH A.2036@TK2MSFTN GP14.phx.gbl...
| When memoryLimit threshold is reached, does Aspnet process know to call
| GC.GetTotalMemo ry(true) to ensure that it's a real violation of the limit
| before recycling itself?
|
| thanks!
|
| "Neyah" <Neyah@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
| news:35BB8BE3-5BA9-41D1-8122-CCF988684E72@mi crosoft.com...
| >I didn't indicate that Zen should not profile the application and attempt
| >to
| > reduce memory consumption. I merely replied to the original question of
| > "How
| > is this possible?" and directed him to an article that answered the
| > question.
| >
| > Zen, the relevant portion of the article where they indicated to use 800
| > MB
| > is as follows:
| > First, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption begins to
| > increase dramatically when "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is within 600 MB of
the
| > virtual address space limit (generally 2 GB), and secondly, tests have
| > shown
| > that "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is often larger than "Process\Privat e
Bytes"
| > by
| > no more than 600 MB. This difference is due in part to the MEM_RESERVE
| > regions maintained by the GC, allowing it to quickly commit more memory
| > when
| > needed. Taken together this implies that when "Process\Privat e Bytes"
| > exceeds
| > 800 MB, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption
increases.
| >
| > You're not really out of memory, you're just out of address space for
the
| > worker process. This could be solved by utilizing the /3GB switch or
| > switching to a 64 bit machine. You indicated that you don't have enough
| > RAM
| > to use /3GB, and purchasing a new machine isn't necessarily a real
option.
| >
| > Please note that 2.0 has many optimizations to the way GC works,
including
| > the ability to reuse a fragmented LOH. You can run your 1.1 web
| > application
| > under 2.0 without having to recompile simply by going into IIS, going
into
| > ASP.NET tab in the properties for the affected IIS application
directory,
| > and
| > changing the dropdown for ASP.NET Version from 1.1.4322 to 2.0.50727.
| >
| > If you aren't willing or aren't able to have 2.0 installed on your web
| > server, I would say that your only option is to live with process
| > recycling.
| > I wouldn't consider constant OOMs with no way to recover from this state
| > as a
| > valid "choice".
| >
| > "Willy Denoyette [MVP]" wrote:
| >
| >> Zen,
| >>
| >> You should read the article carefully, the threshold is an empirical
one
| >> based on experiments using a typical application on a version (v1.1) of
| >> the
| >> framework. But it's nothing else than a (dirty) trick, it sets the
| >> threshold
| >> at such a low level that it forces the process to recycle before you
| >> possibly have a chance to encounter an OOM exception, it's 'dirty'
| >> because
| >> it may hide a bug (or design flaw) in your code and it side-steps the
LOH
| >> fragmentation problem typical for v1.0 and v1.1 (non SP1) of the
| >> framework.
| >>
| >> You did change your code to reduce the memory consumption, but still
| >> your
| >> memory consumption reaches 1.3 GB, so I guess you did refactor your
code
| >> such that there is less (or no?) fragmentation of the LOH. But again,
| >> once
| >> the heap becomes too fragmented you are at risk for OOM's. Now the
point
| >> is
| >> what do you prefer, process recycling or OOM's, for me the two are
| >> equally
| >> bad, you didn't pay for 2GB of memory to only use 60% of it didn't you?
| >> So, I repeat it again, profile your web application take a look at the
| >> allocation pattern, that's the only way to prevent/reduce fragmentation
| >> in a
| >> server like application. If you can eliminate fragmentation completely,
| >> your
| >> application will live a long, well performing and healthy life :-), if
| >> you
| >> can't eliminate fragmentation, you will have to live with process
| >> recycling
| >> or OOM's, the choice is yours.
| >>
| >> Willy.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> "Zen" <zen@nononospam .com> wrote in message
| >> news:OYrZZDRHGH A.1088@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
| >> | thanks for the information. By the way, I'm not clear on how the
| >> author
| >> of
| >> | the article came up with the 800MB as a good threshold for
| >> "Process\Privat e
| >> | Bytes"? I restructured my code to reduce memory consumption peak
(it's
| >> long
| >> | to explain it but it including removing a website from the server)
and
| >> it's
| >> | running fine even when the "Private Bytes" goes up to 1.3G. I
suspect
| >> that
| >> | the MEM_RESERVE regions go up for each additional website as well but
I
| >> | still don't get the 800MB threshold, could someone explain? Thanks!
| >> |
| >> | Also, I was setting the memory max to 80% instead of 60% hoping to
| >> solve
| >> the
| >> | problem. I'm changing it back down to 65% now.
| >> |
| >> |
| >> | "Neyah" <Neyah@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
| >> | news:2A019F44-5E44-4435-8374-552A157D7B7D@mi crosoft.com...
| >> | > See this info (it's long)
| >> | >
| >>

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnaspp/html/monitor_perf.asp

| >> | >
| >> | > A quote:
| >> | > First, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption
begins
| >> to
| >> | > increase dramatically when "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is within 600 MB
| >> of
| >> the
| >> | > virtual address space limit (generally 2 GB), and secondly, tests
| >> have
| >> | > shown
| >> | > that "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is often larger than "Process\Privat e
| >> Bytes"
| >> | > by
| >> | > no more than 600 MB. This difference is due in part to the
| >> MEM_RESERVE
| >> | > regions maintained by the GC, allowing it to quickly commit more
| >> memory
| >> | > when
| >> | > needed. Taken together this implies that when "Process\Privat e
Bytes"
| >> | > exceeds
| >> | > 800 MB, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption
| >> increases.
| >> | >
| >> | > Long story short, asp.net 1.1 with has a high likelyhood of
| >> experiencing
| >> | > OutOfMemoryExce ptions once the aspnet_wp.exe process exceeds 800 MB
| >> due
| >> to
| >> | > address space limitations and additional reserve by the GC.
| >> | >
| >> | > The below applies to IIS 5.0. For IIS 6.0, you would set this up
| >> from
| >> IIS
| >> | > Manager Properties -> Recycling -> Maximum used memory. But one of
| >> your
| >> | > other posts indicated you were using Win 2k server, so you don't
have
| >> IIS
| >> | > 6.0.
| >> | >
| >> | > The memorylimit defaults to 60% of available RAM, which is why you
| >> didn't
| >> | > have any issues while you only had 1 GB. Now that you have 2 GB,
| >> | > aspnet_wp.exe won't recycle until it reaches 1.2 GB, which is over
| >> the
| >> 800
| >> | > MB
| >> | > problem point. You'll want to set the memoryLimit in the your
| >> | > machine.config
| >> | > setting for processModel to a value that doesn't exceed 800 MB.
For
| >> a 2
| >> | > GB
| >> | > machine, 39% will do the trick.
| >> | >
| >> | > If you have enough RAM to where you have included the /3GB switch
to
| >> | > boot.ini, you can use a value that calculates out to 1,800 MB
| >> instead.
| >> | >
| >> | > I'd also recommend lowering the timout and idelTimout values from
| >> | > Infinite,
| >> | > to a lower value. This will allow the aspnet_wp.exe process to
| >> actually
| >> | > recycle.
| >> | >
| >> | > "Zen" wrote:
| >> | >
| >> | >> Hi,
| >> | >>
| >> | >> My production machine has 2G of memory, when aspnet_wp.exe goes up
| >> to
| >> | >> about
| >> | >> ~1.2G of memory usage, I start get out-of-memory exception. Other
| >> | >> processes
| >> | >> don't use as much memory and I added all the peak memory usage of
| >> all
| >> the
| >> | >> processes (including aspnet_wp.exe), it goes up to no more than
1.5.
| >> | >>
| >> | >> How is that possible? Would anyone know please help? thanks!
| >> | >>
| >> | >>
| >> | >>
| >> |
| >> |
| >>
| >>
| >>
|
|

[Zen]

Re: maximum .net process can use

According to the documentation that Neyah, when we pass "true" to the
GetTotalMemory( ) it actually calls other methods until it "seems" nothing
left to be collected (5% stability) then it returns.


"Willy Denoyette [MVP]" <willy.denoyett e@telenet.be> wrote in message
news:uFc2bNhHGH A.344@TK2MSFTNG P11.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> The worker process is an unmanaged host, it doesn't have to call anything
> to
> know if the threshold has been reached, it calls the OS services (and the
> CLR services through the hosting interface) for this and exits when a
> threshold is reached or when a deadlock is detected etc...
> The aspnet ISAPI dll restarts the process when this happens.
> Note also that GC.GetTotalMemo ry only returns the GC allocated memory, and
> that's not the threshold we are talking about.
>
> Willy.
>
>
>
> "Zen" <zen@nononospam .com> wrote in message
> news:O53yVrgHGH A.2036@TK2MSFTN GP14.phx.gbl...
> | When memoryLimit threshold is reached, does Aspnet process know to call
> | GC.GetTotalMemo ry(true) to ensure that it's a real violation of the
> limit
> | before recycling itself?
> |
> | thanks!
> |
> | "Neyah" <Neyah@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
> | news:35BB8BE3-5BA9-41D1-8122-CCF988684E72@mi crosoft.com...
> | >I didn't indicate that Zen should not profile the application and
> attempt
> | >to
> | > reduce memory consumption. I merely replied to the original question
> of
> | > "How
> | > is this possible?" and directed him to an article that answered the
> | > question.
> | >
> | > Zen, the relevant portion of the article where they indicated to use
> 800
> | > MB
> | > is as follows:
> | > First, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption begins
> to
> | > increase dramatically when "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is within 600 MB of
> the
> | > virtual address space limit (generally 2 GB), and secondly, tests have
> | > shown
> | > that "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is often larger than "Process\Privat e
> Bytes"
> | > by
> | > no more than 600 MB. This difference is due in part to the MEM_RESERVE
> | > regions maintained by the GC, allowing it to quickly commit more
> memory
> | > when
> | > needed. Taken together this implies that when "Process\Privat e Bytes"
> | > exceeds
> | > 800 MB, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption
> increases.
> | >
> | > You're not really out of memory, you're just out of address space for
> the
> | > worker process. This could be solved by utilizing the /3GB switch or
> | > switching to a 64 bit machine. You indicated that you don't have
> enough
> | > RAM
> | > to use /3GB, and purchasing a new machine isn't necessarily a real
> option.
> | >
> | > Please note that 2.0 has many optimizations to the way GC works,
> including
> | > the ability to reuse a fragmented LOH. You can run your 1.1 web
> | > application
> | > under 2.0 without having to recompile simply by going into IIS, going
> into
> | > ASP.NET tab in the properties for the affected IIS application
> directory,
> | > and
> | > changing the dropdown for ASP.NET Version from 1.1.4322 to 2.0.50727.
> | >
> | > If you aren't willing or aren't able to have 2.0 installed on your web
> | > server, I would say that your only option is to live with process
> | > recycling.
> | > I wouldn't consider constant OOMs with no way to recover from this
> state
> | > as a
> | > valid "choice".
> | >
> | > "Willy Denoyette [MVP]" wrote:
> | >
> | >> Zen,
> | >>
> | >> You should read the article carefully, the threshold is an empirical
> one
> | >> based on experiments using a typical application on a version (v1.1)
> of
> | >> the
> | >> framework. But it's nothing else than a (dirty) trick, it sets the
> | >> threshold
> | >> at such a low level that it forces the process to recycle before you
> | >> possibly have a chance to encounter an OOM exception, it's 'dirty'
> | >> because
> | >> it may hide a bug (or design flaw) in your code and it side-steps the
> LOH
> | >> fragmentation problem typical for v1.0 and v1.1 (non SP1) of the
> | >> framework.
> | >>
> | >> You did change your code to reduce the memory consumption, but still
> | >> your
> | >> memory consumption reaches 1.3 GB, so I guess you did refactor your
> code
> | >> such that there is less (or no?) fragmentation of the LOH. But again,
> | >> once
> | >> the heap becomes too fragmented you are at risk for OOM's. Now the
> point
> | >> is
> | >> what do you prefer, process recycling or OOM's, for me the two are
> | >> equally
> | >> bad, you didn't pay for 2GB of memory to only use 60% of it didn't
> you?
> | >> So, I repeat it again, profile your web application take a look at
> the
> | >> allocation pattern, that's the only way to prevent/reduce
> fragmentation
> | >> in a
> | >> server like application. If you can eliminate fragmentation
> completely,
> | >> your
> | >> application will live a long, well performing and healthy life :-),
> if
> | >> you
> | >> can't eliminate fragmentation, you will have to live with process
> | >> recycling
> | >> or OOM's, the choice is yours.
> | >>
> | >> Willy.
> | >>
> | >>
> | >>
> | >>
> | >>
> | >> "Zen" <zen@nononospam .com> wrote in message
> | >> news:OYrZZDRHGH A.1088@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
> | >> | thanks for the information. By the way, I'm not clear on how the
> | >> author
> | >> of
> | >> | the article came up with the 800MB as a good threshold for
> | >> "Process\Privat e
> | >> | Bytes"? I restructured my code to reduce memory consumption peak
> (it's
> | >> long
> | >> | to explain it but it including removing a website from the server)
> and
> | >> it's
> | >> | running fine even when the "Private Bytes" goes up to 1.3G. I
> suspect
> | >> that
> | >> | the MEM_RESERVE regions go up for each additional website as well
> but
> I
> | >> | still don't get the 800MB threshold, could someone explain? Thanks!
> | >> |
> | >> | Also, I was setting the memory max to 80% instead of 60% hoping to
> | >> solve
> | >> the
> | >> | problem. I'm changing it back down to 65% now.
> | >> |
> | >> |
> | >> | "Neyah" <Neyah@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
> | >> | news:2A019F44-5E44-4435-8374-552A157D7B7D@mi crosoft.com...
> | >> | > See this info (it's long)
> | >> | >
> | >>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...nitor_perf.asp
> | >> | >
> | >> | > A quote:
> | >> | > First, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption
> begins
> | >> to
> | >> | > increase dramatically when "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is within 600
> MB
> | >> of
> | >> the
> | >> | > virtual address space limit (generally 2 GB), and secondly, tests
> | >> have
> | >> | > shown
> | >> | > that "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is often larger than
> "Process\Privat e
> | >> Bytes"
> | >> | > by
> | >> | > no more than 600 MB. This difference is due in part to the
> | >> MEM_RESERVE
> | >> | > regions maintained by the GC, allowing it to quickly commit more
> | >> memory
> | >> | > when
> | >> | > needed. Taken together this implies that when "Process\Privat e
> Bytes"
> | >> | > exceeds
> | >> | > 800 MB, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption
> | >> increases.
> | >> | >
> | >> | > Long story short, asp.net 1.1 with has a high likelyhood of
> | >> experiencing
> | >> | > OutOfMemoryExce ptions once the aspnet_wp.exe process exceeds 800
> MB
> | >> due
> | >> to
> | >> | > address space limitations and additional reserve by the GC.
> | >> | >
> | >> | > The below applies to IIS 5.0. For IIS 6.0, you would set this up
> | >> from
> | >> IIS
> | >> | > Manager Properties -> Recycling -> Maximum used memory. But one
> of
> | >> your
> | >> | > other posts indicated you were using Win 2k server, so you don't
> have
> | >> IIS
> | >> | > 6.0.
> | >> | >
> | >> | > The memorylimit defaults to 60% of available RAM, which is why
> you
> | >> didn't
> | >> | > have any issues while you only had 1 GB. Now that you have 2 GB,
> | >> | > aspnet_wp.exe won't recycle until it reaches 1.2 GB, which is
> over
> | >> the
> | >> 800
> | >> | > MB
> | >> | > problem point. You'll want to set the memoryLimit in the your
> | >> | > machine.config
> | >> | > setting for processModel to a value that doesn't exceed 800 MB.
> For
> | >> a 2
> | >> | > GB
> | >> | > machine, 39% will do the trick.
> | >> | >
> | >> | > If you have enough RAM to where you have included the /3GB switch
> to
> | >> | > boot.ini, you can use a value that calculates out to 1,800 MB
> | >> instead.
> | >> | >
> | >> | > I'd also recommend lowering the timout and idelTimout values from
> | >> | > Infinite,
> | >> | > to a lower value. This will allow the aspnet_wp.exe process to
> | >> actually
> | >> | > recycle.
> | >> | >
> | >> | > "Zen" wrote:
> | >> | >
> | >> | >> Hi,
> | >> | >>
> | >> | >> My production machine has 2G of memory, when aspnet_wp.exe goes
> up
> | >> to
> | >> | >> about
> | >> | >> ~1.2G of memory usage, I start get out-of-memory exception.
> Other
> | >> | >> processes
> | >> | >> don't use as much memory and I added all the peak memory usage
> of
> | >> all
> | >> the
> | >> | >> processes (including aspnet_wp.exe), it goes up to no more than
> 1.5.
> | >> | >>
> | >> | >> How is that possible? Would anyone know please help? thanks!
> | >> | >>
> | >> | >>
> | >> | >>
> | >> |
> | >> |
> | >>
> | >>
> | >>
> |
> |
>
>[/color]

[Willy Denoyette [MVP]]

Re: maximum .net process can use

GetTotalMemory( true), calls GC.Collect()/WaitForPendingF inalizers() a couple
of time that's right, but this is not the point, your question was about the
asp.net worker process right?.
The asp.net WP doesn't call GCGetTotalMemor y(true), and doesn't care about
GC allocated memory it cares about "private bytes", GC heaps are only a
(large) part of it. The WP will do all it can to prevent recycling, so it
will instruct the CLR to run a full GC, before he ever decides to recycle.
This is not what you should be worried about, what you should do is take
control over your applications memory consumption in order to prevent
recycling, and this starts with profiling.
Again, don't pay to much attention to the article unless you are running
v1.1 without SP1, in which case I would install the SP as soon as possible.

Willy.

"Zen" <zen@nononospam .com> wrote in message
news:%23AEGqsiH GHA.312@TK2MSFT NGP09.phx.gbl.. .
| According to the documentation that Neyah, when we pass "true" to the
| GetTotalMemory( ) it actually calls other methods until it "seems" nothing
| left to be collected (5% stability) then it returns.
|
|
| "Willy Denoyette [MVP]" <willy.denoyett e@telenet.be> wrote in message
| news:uFc2bNhHGH A.344@TK2MSFTNG P11.phx.gbl...
| > The worker process is an unmanaged host, it doesn't have to call
anything
| > to
| > know if the threshold has been reached, it calls the OS services (and
the
| > CLR services through the hosting interface) for this and exits when a
| > threshold is reached or when a deadlock is detected etc...
| > The aspnet ISAPI dll restarts the process when this happens.
| > Note also that GC.GetTotalMemo ry only returns the GC allocated memory,
and
| > that's not the threshold we are talking about.
| >
| > Willy.
| >
| >
| >
| > "Zen" <zen@nononospam .com> wrote in message
| > news:O53yVrgHGH A.2036@TK2MSFTN GP14.phx.gbl...
| > | When memoryLimit threshold is reached, does Aspnet process know to
call
| > | GC.GetTotalMemo ry(true) to ensure that it's a real violation of the
| > limit
| > | before recycling itself?
| > |
| > | thanks!
| > |
| > | "Neyah" <Neyah@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
| > | news:35BB8BE3-5BA9-41D1-8122-CCF988684E72@mi crosoft.com...
| > | >I didn't indicate that Zen should not profile the application and
| > attempt
| > | >to
| > | > reduce memory consumption. I merely replied to the original
question
| > of
| > | > "How
| > | > is this possible?" and directed him to an article that answered the
| > | > question.
| > | >
| > | > Zen, the relevant portion of the article where they indicated to use
| > 800
| > | > MB
| > | > is as follows:
| > | > First, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption begins
| > to
| > | > increase dramatically when "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is within 600 MB
of
| > the
| > | > virtual address space limit (generally 2 GB), and secondly, tests
have
| > | > shown
| > | > that "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is often larger than "Process\Privat e
| > Bytes"
| > | > by
| > | > no more than 600 MB. This difference is due in part to the
MEM_RESERVE
| > | > regions maintained by the GC, allowing it to quickly commit more
| > memory
| > | > when
| > | > needed. Taken together this implies that when "Process\Privat e
Bytes"
| > | > exceeds
| > | > 800 MB, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption
| > increases.
| > | >
| > | > You're not really out of memory, you're just out of address space
for
| > the
| > | > worker process. This could be solved by utilizing the /3GB switch
or
| > | > switching to a 64 bit machine. You indicated that you don't have
| > enough
| > | > RAM
| > | > to use /3GB, and purchasing a new machine isn't necessarily a real
| > option.
| > | >
| > | > Please note that 2.0 has many optimizations to the way GC works,
| > including
| > | > the ability to reuse a fragmented LOH. You can run your 1.1 web
| > | > application
| > | > under 2.0 without having to recompile simply by going into IIS,
going
| > into
| > | > ASP.NET tab in the properties for the affected IIS application
| > directory,
| > | > and
| > | > changing the dropdown for ASP.NET Version from 1.1.4322 to
2.0.50727.
| > | >
| > | > If you aren't willing or aren't able to have 2.0 installed on your
web
| > | > server, I would say that your only option is to live with process
| > | > recycling.
| > | > I wouldn't consider constant OOMs with no way to recover from this
| > state
| > | > as a
| > | > valid "choice".
| > | >
| > | > "Willy Denoyette [MVP]" wrote:
| > | >
| > | >> Zen,
| > | >>
| > | >> You should read the article carefully, the threshold is an
empirical
| > one
| > | >> based on experiments using a typical application on a version
(v1.1)
| > of
| > | >> the
| > | >> framework. But it's nothing else than a (dirty) trick, it sets the
| > | >> threshold
| > | >> at such a low level that it forces the process to recycle before
you
| > | >> possibly have a chance to encounter an OOM exception, it's 'dirty'
| > | >> because
| > | >> it may hide a bug (or design flaw) in your code and it side-steps
the
| > LOH
| > | >> fragmentation problem typical for v1.0 and v1.1 (non SP1) of the
| > | >> framework.
| > | >>
| > | >> You did change your code to reduce the memory consumption, but
still
| > | >> your
| > | >> memory consumption reaches 1.3 GB, so I guess you did refactor your
| > code
| > | >> such that there is less (or no?) fragmentation of the LOH. But
again,
| > | >> once
| > | >> the heap becomes too fragmented you are at risk for OOM's. Now the
| > point
| > | >> is
| > | >> what do you prefer, process recycling or OOM's, for me the two are
| > | >> equally
| > | >> bad, you didn't pay for 2GB of memory to only use 60% of it didn't
| > you?
| > | >> So, I repeat it again, profile your web application take a look at
| > the
| > | >> allocation pattern, that's the only way to prevent/reduce
| > fragmentation
| > | >> in a
| > | >> server like application. If you can eliminate fragmentation
| > completely,
| > | >> your
| > | >> application will live a long, well performing and healthy life :-),
| > if
| > | >> you
| > | >> can't eliminate fragmentation, you will have to live with process
| > | >> recycling
| > | >> or OOM's, the choice is yours.
| > | >>
| > | >> Willy.
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >> "Zen" <zen@nononospam .com> wrote in message
| > | >> news:OYrZZDRHGH A.1088@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
| > | >> | thanks for the information. By the way, I'm not clear on how the
| > | >> author
| > | >> of
| > | >> | the article came up with the 800MB as a good threshold for
| > | >> "Process\Privat e
| > | >> | Bytes"? I restructured my code to reduce memory consumption peak
| > (it's
| > | >> long
| > | >> | to explain it but it including removing a website from the
server)
| > and
| > | >> it's
| > | >> | running fine even when the "Private Bytes" goes up to 1.3G. I
| > suspect
| > | >> that
| > | >> | the MEM_RESERVE regions go up for each additional website as well
| > but
| > I
| > | >> | still don't get the 800MB threshold, could someone explain?
Thanks!
| > | >> |
| > | >> | Also, I was setting the memory max to 80% instead of 60% hoping
to
| > | >> solve
| > | >> the
| > | >> | problem. I'm changing it back down to 65% now.
| > | >> |
| > | >> |
| > | >> | "Neyah" <Neyah@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
| > | >> | news:2A019F44-5E44-4435-8374-552A157D7B7D@mi crosoft.com...
| > | >> | > See this info (it's long)
| > | >> | >
| > | >>
| >

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnaspp/html/monitor_perf.asp

| > | >> | >
| > | >> | > A quote:
| > | >> | > First, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption
| > begins
| > | >> to
| > | >> | > increase dramatically when "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is within
600
| > MB
| > | >> of
| > | >> the
| > | >> | > virtual address space limit (generally 2 GB), and secondly,
tests
| > | >> have
| > | >> | > shown
| > | >> | > that "Process\Virtua l Bytes" is often larger than
| > "Process\Privat e
| > | >> Bytes"
| > | >> | > by
| > | >> | > no more than 600 MB. This difference is due in part to the
| > | >> MEM_RESERVE
| > | >> | > regions maintained by the GC, allowing it to quickly commit
more
| > | >> memory
| > | >> | > when
| > | >> | > needed. Taken together this implies that when "Process\Privat e
| > Bytes"
| > | >> | > exceeds
| > | >> | > 800 MB, the likelihood of experiencing an OutOfMemoryExce ption
| > | >> increases.
| > | >> | >
| > | >> | > Long story short, asp.net 1.1 with has a high likelyhood of
| > | >> experiencing
| > | >> | > OutOfMemoryExce ptions once the aspnet_wp.exe process exceeds
800
| > MB
| > | >> due
| > | >> to
| > | >> | > address space limitations and additional reserve by the GC.
| > | >> | >
| > | >> | > The below applies to IIS 5.0. For IIS 6.0, you would set this
up
| > | >> from
| > | >> IIS
| > | >> | > Manager Properties -> Recycling -> Maximum used memory. But
one
| > of
| > | >> your
| > | >> | > other posts indicated you were using Win 2k server, so you
don't
| > have
| > | >> IIS
| > | >> | > 6.0.
| > | >> | >
| > | >> | > The memorylimit defaults to 60% of available RAM, which is why
| > you
| > | >> didn't
| > | >> | > have any issues while you only had 1 GB. Now that you have 2
GB,
| > | >> | > aspnet_wp.exe won't recycle until it reaches 1.2 GB, which is
| > over
| > | >> the
| > | >> 800
| > | >> | > MB
| > | >> | > problem point. You'll want to set the memoryLimit in the your
| > | >> | > machine.config
| > | >> | > setting for processModel to a value that doesn't exceed 800 MB.
| > For
| > | >> a 2
| > | >> | > GB
| > | >> | > machine, 39% will do the trick.
| > | >> | >
| > | >> | > If you have enough RAM to where you have included the /3GB
switch
| > to
| > | >> | > boot.ini, you can use a value that calculates out to 1,800 MB
| > | >> instead.
| > | >> | >
| > | >> | > I'd also recommend lowering the timout and idelTimout values
from
| > | >> | > Infinite,
| > | >> | > to a lower value. This will allow the aspnet_wp.exe process to
| > | >> actually
| > | >> | > recycle.
| > | >> | >
| > | >> | > "Zen" wrote:
| > | >> | >
| > | >> | >> Hi,
| > | >> | >>
| > | >> | >> My production machine has 2G of memory, when aspnet_wp.exe
goes
| > up
| > | >> to
| > | >> | >> about
| > | >> | >> ~1.2G of memory usage, I start get out-of-memory exception.
| > Other
| > | >> | >> processes
| > | >> | >> don't use as much memory and I added all the peak memory usage
| > of
| > | >> all
| > | >> the
| > | >> | >> processes (including aspnet_wp.exe), it goes up to no more
than
| > 1.5.
| > | >> | >>
| > | >> | >> How is that possible? Would anyone know please help? thanks!
| > | >> | >>
| > | >> | >>
| > | >> | >>
| > | >> |
| > | >> |
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|