I was recently using the new flex server monitor in ColdFusion 8 and
noticed that a single Mach-II application utilizes around 20mb in the
Application scope memory. To ensure that this just wasn't my
particular application doing something weird, I downloaded the Mach-II
pet market sample, started it up and got a similar reading. The thing
is, this is just "one" simple app. I wonder what would happen if I
started up a huge multi level application. Would 20mb be multiplied by
the number of sub apps I have running? If that is the case wouldn't
this be really pushing it? Or is there a better way to setup sub
applications without assigning a new MachII_App_Key, therefore
minimizing the creation of dozens of app instances?
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Hussein Grant <hussein.gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I was recently using the new flex server monitor in ColdFusion 8 and > noticed that a single Mach-II application utilizes around 20mb in the > Application scope memory. To ensure that this just wasn't my > particular application doing something weird, I downloaded the Mach-II > pet market sample, started it up and got a similar reading. The thing > is, this is just "one" simple app. I wonder what would happen if I > started up a huge multi level application. Would 20mb be multiplied by > the number of sub apps I have running? If that is the case wouldn't > this be really pushing it? Or is there a better way to setup sub > applications without assigning a new MachII_App_Key, therefore > minimizing the creation of dozens of app instances?
> Be aware there is a baseline memory utilization for the framework, so
> no, this wouldn't be 20MB multiplied by the number of apps.
> Mach-II is used on numerous large, high-traffic applications so you
> needn't worry there are any gross inefficiencies in the framework
> itself.
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Hussein Grant <hussein.gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I was recently using the new flex server monitor in ColdFusion 8 and
> > noticed that a single Mach-II application utilizes around 20mb in the
> > Application scope memory. To ensure that this just wasn't my
> > particular application doing something weird, I downloaded the Mach-II
> > pet market sample, started it up and got a similar reading. The thing
> > is, this is just "one" simple app. I wonder what would happen if I
> > started up a huge multi level application. Would 20mb be multiplied by
> > the number of sub apps I have running? If that is the case wouldn't
> > this be really pushing it? Or is there a better way to setup sub
> > applications without assigning a new MachII_App_Key, therefore
> > minimizing the creation of dozens of app instances?
Also, remember that except for the RequestHandler, EventContext and Event objects which are created for each request, the entire framework is loaded as singletons.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hussein Grant <hussein.gr...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 12:26:07 To:Mach-II for ColdFusion <mach-ii-for-coldfusion@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [Mach-II] Re: Mach-II 1.6 Memory Footprint
Thank you.
On May 8, 11:15 am, "Matt Woodward" <mpwoodw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Be aware there is a baseline memory utilization for the framework, so
> no, this wouldn't be 20MB multiplied by the number of apps.
> Mach-II is used on numerous large, high-traffic applications so you
> needn't worry there are any gross inefficiencies in the framework
> itself.
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Hussein Grant <hussein.gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I was recently using the new flex server monitor in ColdFusion 8 and
> > noticed that a single Mach-II application utilizes around 20mb in the
> > Application scope memory. To ensure that this just wasn't my
> > particular application doing something weird, I downloaded the Mach-II
> > pet market sample, started it up and got a similar reading. The thing
> > is, this is just "one" simple app. I wonder what would happen if I
> > started up a huge multi level application. Would 20mb be multiplied by
> > the number of sub apps I have running? If that is the case wouldn't
> > this be really pushing it? Or is there a better way to setup sub
> > applications without assigning a new MachII_App_Key, therefore
> > minimizing the creation of dozens of app instances?
