Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 4608668
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 22, 20262026-05-22T00:52:40+00:00 2026-05-22T00:52:40+00:00

When upgrading from Ruby 1.8.6 to Ruby Enterprise 1.8.7 p334, the memory size has

  • 0

When upgrading from Ruby 1.8.6 to Ruby Enterprise 1.8.7 p334, the memory size has nearly doubled. This has occurred in every one of the five Fedora 8 servers we upgraded. We run Rails 1.2.6 with Passenger 3.0.4.

Munin gets the memory size for every process by summing the vsz and rsz columns from $ ps axo pid,comm,pmem,vsz,rsz. (The virtual memory size and resident memory size both increase the same amount)

I realize that these columns generally overstate the amount of memory actually used by the processes, but if this was used to measure 1.8.6 and then 1.8.7 REE, they should be equally bloated, and therefore still comparable.

In addition, the committed memory for the machine (as listed in /proc/memstat) is now regularly overcommitting, which is new. The amount committed memory has increased significantly, and it looks like we’re now into swap space.

We have not yet tuned the garbage collection, but I can’t see how that would affect the overall memory footprint.

I have turned on the GC.copy_on_write_friendly variable as recommended by the Phusion FAQ.

What is the explanation for this 100% increase in memory usage and how can I fix it? Any ideas on how to fix, or even better monitor/debug, are appreciated.

Thanks.

—UPDATE

In order to check performance, I have decreased the number of running instances (PassengerMaxPoolSize) from 12 to 10 on one server. On another, I have raised the PassengerPoolIdleTime to 15 minutes. I have a third that is being used as a control.

I’m considering putting a non-enterprise version 1.8.7p334 on a server to see if it’s 1.8.7 or the Enterprise Edition.

Anyone else have any experience with this type of issue?

Looking at the individual Rails processes, they are about 120MB per process in 1.8.6, and 175MB/process in REE 1.8.7, as stated by passenger-memory-stats.

—UPDATE 2

I put MRI 1.8.7 on a server for comparison to REE 1.8.7. The results were worse, including higher memory resident size number and passenger-memory-stats. Of course, swapping started.

This is leading me to believe that 1.8.7 simply has a larger footprint than 1.8.6.

—UPDATE 3

I put MRI 1.8.7 on a server, it was much worse that MRI 1.8.6 in terms of memory usage, so I immediately went back to MRI 1.86.

I’ve run an average of Rails process size, as listed by passenger-memory-stats. The REE 1.8.7 processes were 73 MB larger, which seems rather large.

This means that I need to have significantly less processes running to fit in the same memory footprint.

Will see how they perform with fewer processes. I’m also starting the GC tuning.

—UPDATE 4

Seems Ruby 1.8.7 does not support Rails 1.2.6. The first officially supported version of 1.8.7 is Rails 2.1. We’ll know after the upgrade if that’s the root of the problem.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-22T00:52:41+00:00Added an answer on May 22, 2026 at 12:52 am

    You went from a 32-bit version of Ruby to a 64-bit version of Ruby. This doubles the size of pointers, of which there are many in the runtime.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

We're in the process of upgrading one of our SQL Server instances from 2000
After upgrading to ruby 1.9 we began to notice pages failing to render from
We have customers who are upgrading from one database version to another (Oracle 9i
We're looking at upgrading from Visual Studio 2005 to Visual Studio 2008. I discovered
What are the benefits of upgrading from Visual Studio 2005 to 2008? Any thoughts
I am upgrading my environment from eclipse 3.3.1 and java 1.4 to eclipse 3.4.1
We are in the process of upgrading our projects from C# 2.0 / VS2005
We're upgrading an existing program from Win2k/SQL Server 2k to Windows 2003 and SQL
I'm upgrading an app with many different settings files from XP to Vista and
How hard/complex would upgrading an application from Rails 2.2.2 to the latest build? I

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.