Re: [rules-users] Measuring Drools Memory Usage

For Drools 4.0.x we eventually run profiling tools to make sure we got not leak. A couple were found and fixed in the past and we are not aware of any leak in 4.0.7. It is very important though to make sure that if you are using stateful sessions, you call dispose() on the session after using it. Otherwise, drools will hold resources internally (since it is a stateful session). []s Edson 2008/7/29 Ingomar Otter <iotter(a)mac.com&gt; > We used two approaches to double check results. > At first we used an approach similiar to what you haved described. Please > note that (depneding on platfom) freeMemory is not byte- exact). Wo you > won't see little changes. > Also, if you were using stateless sessions the result you have seen may be > correct. > > Out other approach was to seriazie that parts we're instrested in (and > assume that real memory usage is just an small factor to be applied to the > result we go. > We then compared the two results and they agreed on the order of magnitude > which was what were looking for. > However we were primarily looking at Rulebase sizes, not WM memory > consumption - which for the application we are currently are working on is > neglegctible. > > >Has anyone attempted to measure the incremental memory usage of using > >Drools > > Do you expect an incremental memory usage (aka memory leak) using Drools? > I don't ;-) > You may want to run your use-case let's say 100.000 times to easiert to > measure results. > > --I > > > > > > Am 29.07.2008 um 03:11 schrieb Roger Tanuatmadja: > > Hi, >> >> Has anyone attempted to measure the incremental memory usage of using >> Drools? Anyone cares to share their methodology? >> >> I am currently following the following methodology: >> 1. Prevent garbage collection from happening by using large Xms Xmx >> (1024m >> in my case), a NewRatio of 2 (I am sure other sizes will work as well) >> and >> verbogegc enabled to confirm that no garbage collection is happening. >> 2. Use Runtime.freeMemory before and after fireAllRules and measuring the >> difference. >> >> The problem with my methods so far has been that after a positive memory >> usage (indicating you are using memory), subsequent use case (the same >> one) >> incurs zero memory usage which is very strange. >> >> So I guess my question is 2 fold: anyone care to share their methodology, >> and can anyone see what's wrong with mine? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Roger >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-users mailing list >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users