CF9 dev server on Vista = 600MB memory?

Report · Oct 12, 2009

I am running the new build of CF9 installed on my Vista workstation connected to IIS7 and it always uses 550MB to 600MB of memory with no apps running. When I use the server with DreamWeaver or CF Builder it jumps to 700MB+. Now I used the same install file on a Win 2003 server and it runs with about 150MB and may grow to 250MB when the traffic gets heavier. It seems that CF9 doesn't like Vista. CF8 did the same thing and I was hoping CF9 would have gotten this fixed since I can't be the only one working on a Vista. Is this a bug or just me?

Thanks

Scott Sledgister

Report · Oct 19, 2009

CF will run with however much memory you tell it to run (in your jvm.config file).

However different OSes report memory usage differently. What are you looking at to arrive at these various figures?

What memory settings have you got in your jvm.config file?

To be honest, I think the default jvm.config sets the Xmx size to 512MB (don't quote me on that), so by the time you add in various other memory allocations and consumption that the JVM is going to make, 600MB used up would be round about what I'd expect. I certainly would not be raising an eyebrow.

[checks]

Yeah, each of my CF instances on Vista - both with an Xmx of 512MB, and maxpermsize of 192MB (which strikes me as being a bit high...) - consume about 600MB of RAM when running.

--

Adam

Report · Oct 19, 2009

The amount of virtual storage reserved by an application at any time can be quite large ... and yet, it doesn't matter one bit. Here's why:

Operating systems vary considerably in just how they go about arriving at such numbers. Many resources are shared and, depending on what you are looking at, may be counted twice.
In the absence of any actual memory-pressure, all operating systems will be "lazy." They will not expunge things from memory without provocation, because someone might need it again soon.
Applications may reserve "generously large" data structures because they know that only what is actually in-use will be paged-in (or even allocated), thus only it will be consuming system resources,

You do not have any actual problem until, under actual conditions of memory stress, the computer system starts spending too much time doing paging operations. (If this happens: "throw silicon at it. Chips Are Cheap.")

Report · Oct 20, 2009

Thanks guys for your response. I still don't really get it but I do see a performance difference with Vista/Server 2008 verses XP/Server 2003 in terms of memory usage. CF just seems to run better on the older OS. If this didn't cause a large drain on my laptop battery I wouldn't care. Oh well, looks like back to XP for me.

Thanks again!