I restarted my redis server after 120 days.
Before restart, memory usage 29.5GB
After restarted, memory usage 27.5GB
So, how 2GB reduced comes?
Free memory in ram like this article https://redis.io/topics/memory-optimization
Redis will not always free up (return) memory to the OS when keys are
removed. This is not something special about Redis, but it is how most
malloc() implementations work. For example if you fill an instance
with 5GB worth of data, and then remove the equivalent of 2GB of data,
the Resident Set Size (also known as the RSS, which is the number of
memory pages consumed by the process) will probably still be around
5GB, even if Redis will claim that the user memory is around 3GB. This
happens because the underlying allocator can't easily release the
memory. For example often most of the removed keys were allocated in
the same pages as the other keys that still exist. The previous point
means that you need to provision memory based on your peak memory
usage. If your workload from time to time requires 10GB, even if most
of the times 5GB could do, you need to provision for 10GB.
However allocators are smart and are able to reuse free chunks of
memory, so after you freed 2GB of your 5GB data set, when you start
adding more keys again, you'll see the RSS (Resident Set Size) to stay
steady and don't grow more, as you add up to 2GB of additional keys.
The allocator is basically trying to reuse the 2GB of memory
previously (logically) freed.
Because of all this, the fragmentation ratio is not reliable when you
had a memory usage that at peak is much larger than the currently used
memory. The fragmentation is calculated as the amount of memory
currently in use (as the sum of all the allocations performed by
Redis) divided by the physical memory actually used (the RSS value).
Because the RSS reflects the peak memory, when the (virtually) used
memory is low since a lot of keys / values were freed, but the RSS is
high, the ratio mem_used / RSS will be very high.
Or free memory of caches which was used by my redis server?
Is redis using cache? Cache of cache?
Thanks!
Related
I learned etcd for a few hours, but a question suddenly came into me. I found that redis is fully capable of covering functions which etcd owns.Like key/value CRUD && watch, and redis is very simple to use. why people choose etcd instead of redis?
why?
I googled a few posts, but no post told me the reason.
Thanks!
Redis stores data in memory, which makes it very high performance but not very durable. If the redis server dies, it's easy to lose data. Etcd stores data in files on disc, and performs fsync across multiple nodes before resolving to guarantee consistency, which makes it very durable but not very performant.
That's a good trade-off for kubernetes, which is using etcd for cluster state and configuration, not user data. It would not be a good trade-off for something like user session data which you might be using redis for in your app because you need extremely fast response times and can tolerate a bit of data loss or inconsistency.
A major difference which is affecting my choice of one vs the other is:
etcd keeps the data index in RAM and the data store on disk
redis keeps both data index and data store in RAM
Theoretically, this means etcd ought to be a good fit for large data / small memory scenarios, where redis would require large RAM.
In practice, etcd's current behaviour is that it allocates some memory per transaction when data is accessed. Under heavy load, the memory footprint of the etcd server balloons unboundedly (appears limited by the rate of read requests), and the Go runtime eventually OOM's, killing the server.
In contrast, the redis design requires a virtual address space sized in relation to the dataset, or to the partition of the dataset stored locally.
Memory footprint examples
Eg, with redis, a 8GB dataset partition with an index size of 0.5GB requires 8.5GB of virtual address space (ie, could be handled with 1GB of RAM and 7.5GB of swap), but not less, and the requirement has an upper bound.
The same 8GB dataset, with etcd, would require only 0.5GB of virtual address space, but not less (ie, could be handled with 500MB of RAM and no swap), in theory. In practice, under high load, etcd's memory use is unbounded.
Other considerations
There are other considerations like data consistency, or supported languages, that have to be evaluated separately.
In my case, the language the server is written in is a factor, as I have in-house C expertise, but no Go expertise. This means I can maintain/diagnose/customize redis (written in C) in-house if needed, but cannot do the same with etc (written in Go), I'd have to use it as released by the maintainers.
My conclusion
Unfortunately, the memory behaviour of etcd, whereby it needs to allocate memory to access the indexed data, negates the memory advantages it might have theoretically, and the risk of crash by OOM due to high load make it unsuitable in applications that might experience unexpected usage spikes. Github bug 14362, Github bug 14352, other OOM reports
Furthermore, the ability to customize the server in-house (ie, available C vs Go expertise) is a business consideration that weighs in redis's favour, in my case.
i'm using redis and noticed that it crashes with the following error :
MISCONF Redis is configured to save RDB snapshots
I tried the solution suggested in this post
but everything seems to be OK in term of permissions and space.
htop command tells me that redis is consuming 70% of RAM. i tried to stop / restart redis in order to flush but at startup, the amount of RAM used by redis was growing up dramatically and stops around 66%. I'm pretty sure at this moment no processus was using any redis instance !
what happens there ?
The growing up ram issue is an expected behaviour of Redis at first data load, after restarts, writing the data to disk (snapshot process). Redis tends to allocate memory as much as it can unless you don't use "maxmemory" option at your conf file.
It allocates memory but not release immediately. Sometimes it takes hours, I saw such cases.
Well known fact about Redis is that, it can allocate memory up to twice size of the dataset it keeps.
I suggest you to wait couple of hours without any restart (Redis can work in this time, get/set operations etc.) and keep watching the memory.
Please check that too
Redis will not always free up (return) memory to the OS when keys are
removed. This is not something special about Redis, but it is how most
malloc() implementations work. For example if you fill an instance
with 5GB worth of data, and then remove the equivalent of 2GB of data,
the Resident Set Size (also known as the RSS, which is the number of
memory pages consumed by the process) will probably still be around
5GB, even if Redis will claim that the user memory is around 3GB. This
happens because the underlying allocator can't easily release the
memory. For example often most of the removed keys were allocated in
the same pages as the other keys that still exist.
How to set the parameter - setRAMBufferSizeMB? Is depending on the RAM size of the Machine? Or Size of Data that needs to be Indexed? Or any other parameter? could someone please suggest an approach for deciding the value of setRAMBufferSizeMB.
So, what we have about this parameter in Lucene javadoc:
Determines the amount of RAM that may be used for buffering added
documents and deletions before they are flushed to the Directory.
Generally for faster indexing performance it's best to flush by RAM
usage instead of document count and use as large a RAM buffer as you
can. When this is set, the writer will flush whenever buffered
documents and deletions use this much RAM.
The maximum RAM limit is inherently determined by the JVMs available
memory. Yet, an IndexWriter session can consume a significantly larger
amount of memory than the given RAM limit since this limit is just an
indicator when to flush memory resident documents to the Directory.
Flushes are likely happen concurrently while other threads adding
documents to the writer. For application stability the available
memory in the JVM should be significantly larger than the RAM buffer
used for indexing.
By default, Lucene uses 16 Mb as this parameter (this is the indication to me, that you shouldn't have that much big parameter to have fine indexing speed). I would recommend you to tune this parameter by setting it let's say to 500 Mb and checking how well your system behave. If you will have crashes, you could try some smaller value like 200 Mb, etc. until your system will be stable.
Yes, as it stated in the javadoc, this parameter depends on the JVM heap, but for Python, I think it could allocate memory without any limit.
Im trying to work around an issue which has been bugging me for a while. In a nutshell: on which basis should one assign a max heap space for resource-hogging application and is there a downside for tit being too large?
I have an application used to visualize huge medical datas, which can eat up to several gigabytes of memory if several imaging volumes are opened size by side. Caching the data to be viewed is essential for fluent workflow. The software is supported with windows workstations and is started with a bootloader, which assigns the heap size and launches the main application. The actual memory needed by main application is directly proportional to the data being viewed and cannot be determined by the bootloader, because it would require reading the data, which would, ultimately, consume too much time.
So, to ensure that the JVM has enough memory during launch we set up xmx as large as we dare based, by current design, on the max physical memory of the workstation. However, is there any downside to this? I've read (from a post from 2008) that it is possible for native processes to hog up excess heap space, which can lead to memory errors during runtime. Should I maybe also sniff for free virtualmemory or paging file size prior to assigning heap space? How would you deal with this situation?
Oh, and this is my first post to these forums. Nice to meet you all and be gentle! :)
Update:
Thanks for all the answers. I'm not sure if I put my words right, but my problem rose from the fact that I have zero knowledge of the hardware this software will be run on but would, nevertheless, like to assign as much heap space for the software as possible.
I came to a solution of assigning a heap of 70% of physical memory IF there is sufficient amount of virtual memory available - less otherwise.
You can have heap sizes of around 28 GB with little impact on performance esp if you have large objects. (lots of small objects can impact GC pause times)
Heap sizes of 100 GB are possible but have down sides, mostly because they can have high pause times. If you use Azul Zing, it can handle much larger heap sizes significantly more gracefully.
The main limitation is the size of your memory. If you heap exceeds that, your application and your computer will run very slower/be unusable.
A standard way around these issues with mapping software (which has to be able to map the whole world for example) is it break your images into tiles. This way you only display the image which is one the screen (or portions which are on the screen) If you need to be able to zoom in and out you might need to store data at two to four levels of scale. Using this approach you can view a map of the whole world on your phone.
Best to not set JVM max memory to greater than 60-70% of workstation memory, in some cases even lower, for two main reasons. First, what the JVM consumes on the physical machine can be 20% or more greater than heap, due to GC mechanics. Second, the representation of a particular data entity in the JVM heap may not be the only physical copy of that entity in the machine's RAM, as the OS has caches and buffers and so forth around the various IO devices from which it grabs these objects.
Is it possible to increase performance by running on a GPU for the algorithm with the following properties:
There are hundreds and even thousands of independent threads, which do not require any synchronization during calculations
Each thread has a relatively small (less than 200Kb) local memory region containing thread-specific data. Read/Write
Each thread accesses a large memory block (hundreds of megabytes and even gigabytes). This memory is read-only
For each access to the global memory there will be at least two accesses to the local memory
There will be a lot of branches in the algorithm
Unfortunately the algorithm is rather complicated to be show here.
My instinct is to use texture memory aggressively. The caching benefits will beat uncoalesced global memory reads by a mile.
The writes you may need to add some padding etc. to avoid bank conflicts.
The reliance on hundreds of meg or gigs of data is somewhat concerning. Can you carve it up somehow? Hope you have a big beefy Tesla/Quadro w/ oodles of RAM.
That said, the name of game for CUDA optimization is always to experiment, profile/measure, rinse and repeat.
Before I start, please remember that there are two layers of parallelism in CUDA: blocks and threads.
There are hundreds and even thousands of independent threads, which do
not require any synchronization during calculations
Since you can launch as many as 65535 blocks per dimension, you can treat each block in cuda to be equivalent to a "thread" of yours.
Each thread has a relatively small (less than 200Kb) local memory
region containing thread-specific data. Read/Write
Unfortunately most cards have a shared memory limit of 16k per block. So if you can figure out how to handle with this lower limit, great. If not, you will need to use global memory accesses..
Each thread accesses a large memory block (hundreds of megabytes and
even gigabytes). This memory is read-only
You can not bind such large arrays to textures or constant memory. So in a given block, try to make the threads read contiguous chunks of data for the best performance.
For each access to the global memory there will be at least two
accesses to the local memory There will be a lot of branches in the
algorithm
Since you are essentially replacing a single thread in your original implementation with a block in cuda, you may want to revise the code a little bit to try and implement a parallel version of the "per thread code" too.
This may not be clear at first glance, but think it through a little. Any algorithm that has hundreds / thousands of independent parts with no synchronization needed is great for a parallel implementation, even with cuda.