-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 202
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Investigation of increased memory usage #1368
Comments
2.14.0
2.15.0
|
2.16.0
|
Memory usage increased by 1GB with version 2.16.0. Thus, it appears to be an effect of the changes in version 2.16.0🤔 |
At the time the following PRs were merged, memory usage had already increased. |
@fukusuket Are you making sure you are testing with the same rules? I just tried with the current rules but version 2.14.0 does not support |
Also, when I am testing on my intel mac, the total committed amount of memory will change about 1GB so running 2.15.0 and 2.16.0 several times will sometimes result in 2GB and sometimes 3GB for each version. Sometimes 2.15.0 uses less memory but sometimes it will use 3GB and 2.16.0 uses only 2GB of memory. So I do not think this is reliable. |
Yes! I am comparing using version 2.14.0 rules, so there is no difference in the number of rules when comparing. |
@fukusuket I see! In that case, no problem. Thanks for looking into this! |
Memory usage has increased by 1GB since the commit 94e8e19 There are so many changes in the dependent libraries that it is difficult to identify which library is responsible...😇 |
@fukusuket That's too bad. In my environment I do not notice a difference in memory usage so it may depend on the CPU architecture. If there is a regression, it might be nice to report it to the crate owner but I would rather stick to using the latest crate versions than use old crates unless there is really a significant degradation in performance or quality. |
@YamatoSecurity |
Investigate the possibility of increased memory usage in later releases of the low-memory feature.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: