WebFaction
Community site: login faq

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone has done any profiling of the memory usage of apps on the Centos6 64-bit servers? I left Slicehost a few years ago, because the 64-bit apps consumed a lot more RAM, thus driving up the costs. I had a bit of a thread going on it over there in 2009: Might I have to say goodbye to Slicehost? (64-bit vs. 32-bit)

I'm curious if the same sort of memory consumption occurs here. I would like to move to Centos6 to get the cgroups functionality, but I don't want to have to buy the next package up just to cover an increase in RAM usage.

Thanks, Pat

asked 12 Dec '11, 10:19

pjtoal
313
accept rate: 0%


We now offer 256MB of RAM by default on all accounts. So you have more room to work in.

permanent link

answered 17 Dec '11, 01:38

johns
5.4k312
accept rate: 23%

Yes, I received this e-mail a few days ago, but just got around to following up. This is indeed good news. I also like that an extra 256MB of RAM is also relatively inexpensive. I will have to make the time to migrate to a new server when time permits.

(20 Dec '11, 14:32) pjtoal

64-bit will almost always use more memory. Just by the nature of a word (the binary measure that comes after a nibble).

Straight from wikipedai (I know not the best source all the time but it still rocks :P).

"The main disadvantage of 64-bit architectures is that relative to 32-bit architectures, the same data occupies more space in memory (due to swollen pointers and possibly other types and alignment padding). This increases the memory requirements of a given process and can have implications for efficient processor cache utilization. Maintaining a partial 32-bit model is one way to handle this and is in general reasonably effective. For example, the z/OS operating system takes this approach currently, requiring program code to reside in 31-bit address spaces (the high order bit is not used in address calculation on the underlying hardware platform) while data objects can optionally reside in 64-bit regions."

I mean in less you are handling a lot of large files or are willing to sacrifice memory for a possible small boost in performance I would recommend staying with 32bit.

permanent link

answered 13 Dec '11, 15:53

NetSage
1
accept rate: 0%

Sorry NetSage, but you didn't actually answer my question. If you read my post over on Slicehost, you would see that I understand 64-bit architectures, and that it will cause applications to have larger footprints.

My questions are whether anyone has done any profiling of applications running on WF servers and compared them to their old 32-bit instances. How much more memory did they consume?

The second part of my question was related to the fact that I'm not really looking for 64-bit architecture, I'm looking for cgroups. So I guess to properly state it: Is there any way to get the fairness of cgroups without having to take on the extra cost of a 64-bit server?

I would hope that someone from Webfaction would chime in on this, as it should have an impact to them. Many people would just jump feet first into a 64-bit server, because 64>32 ergo: better. But the reality is that since Webfaction charges based on RAM consumed, 64-bit actually means more cost, and I highly doubt that the average website is going to benefit from the increased dataspace. I'm unclear on what the advantage is to the average user of moving to a 64-bit host.

Is Webfaction planning on either adjusting 64-bit plans to give more memory for the same price (my guess = no)? Would they consider offering a Centos6 sever w/cgroups on a 32-bit OS? I really don't want to get into the pain and suffering of trying to recompile all my needed apps with a 32-bit architecture, resolve library dependencies, etc. It's NotPretty(tm)

Thanks, Pat

(14 Dec '11, 12:56) pjtoal

I was scratching my head about what to do about this today when I switched over to 64 bit server last week, when all of a sudden my Rails app started going over my allotted 80mb of ram, and I wasn't sure why. and hours later I get this email.

http://www.webfaction.com/newsletter/2011/12-memory.html

hurra!

permanent link

answered 15 Dec '11, 10:32

jan_d
32
accept rate: 0%

Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×87
×11
×1

question asked: 12 Dec '11, 10:19

question was seen: 2,961 times

last updated: 20 Dec '11, 14:32

WEBFACTION
REACH US
SUPPORT
AFFILIATE PROGRAM
LEGAL
© COPYRIGHT 2003-2019 SWARMA LIMITED - WEBFACTION IS A SERVICE OF SWARMA LIMITED
REGISTERED IN ENGLAND AND WALES 5729350 - VAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 877397162
5TH FLOOR, THE OLD VINYL FACTORY, HAYES, UB3 1HA, UNITED KINGDOM