Article delegate-en/1001 of [1-5169] on the server localhost:119
  upper oldest olders older1 this newer1 newers latest
search
[Top/Up] [oldest] - [Older+chunk] - [Newer+chunk] - [newest + Check]

Newsgroups: mail-lists.delegate-en

[DeleGate-En] Re: Can memory usage be reduced?
31 Jan 2001 01:13:10 GMT Peter Steele <p2ybqbdyi-7pkjwobmerfr.ml@ml.delegate.org>


I see no one has replied to my posting. Has no one else had memory concerns
with DeleGate, particularly under NT?

Peter Steele

"Peter Steele" <p2ybqbdyi-7pkjwobmerfr.ml@ml.delegate.org> wrote in message
news:<_A997@delegate-en.ML_>...
> We're considering delegate as a way to provide SSL for our customized
> HTTP/XML server. Our server runs on Windows NT so we're using the NT
version
> of delegate. The problem we've seen in initial tests is the amount of
memory
> delegate consumes. It starts out as a single process taking about a
megabyte
> of memory. When we connect to our server using our manangement client,
> *nine* instances of the delegate process are spawned as well as three
> instances of sslway. This consumes approx. 10 MB of memory. Additional
> clients connecting to the server generate additional delegate and sslway
> processes. Memory would very quickly become exhausted with the number of
> potential client connections we anticipate.
> 
> For comparison we tried stunnel and it uses very little memory, using
> multithreading and shared DDLs instead of forking. Unfortunately stunnel
> lacks a lot of the functionality of delegate. We need the additional
> features that delegate provides but its memory usage is a show stopper. We
> considering looking into the code to see how easily we could convert it
from
> forking to multithreading. Any comments on how feasible this would be? Any
> other advice on how to reduce delegates memory usage?
> 
> Peter Steele
> ONI Systems
> 


  admin search upper oldest olders older1 this newer1 newers latest
[Top/Up] [oldest] - [Older+chunk] - [Newer+chunk] - [newest + Check]
@_@V