maria-discuss team mailing list archive

[Peter Laursen <peter_laursen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Please see attached imaged - a screenshot of Windows Task manager.

I have a lot of MySQL and MariaDB servers installed (all needed for
application testing). It is noticeable that MariaDB 10.1 uses around twice
as much as much memory as compared to MariaDB 10.0, MySQL 5.6 and 5.7 (5 GB
versus 2.5 GB in rough numbers).  Even more surprising to me as P_S is not
running with 10.1 (as I understand).

Further I have MariaDB 10.0 running virtualized in OpenSuSE 12.3 inside
Virtualbox. The process for the virtual machine use only around 10% or
memory as compared to MariaDB 10.0 running natively on Windows (there is
also an active VM running Mint Linux - but MySQL is not running there
currently)

I also have a number of older MySQL servers (5.0, 5.1 and 5.5) The use much
less memory.  That is expected as the configuration reserves smaller
buffers.

Both MariaDB servers in Windows use the configuration created by the
installer. MySQL 5.6 adn 57 servers use the MySQL Installer standard
"developer machine" configuration. The configuraiton of MariaDB 10 in SuSE
is as shipped with the distro (I did not check it actually).

None of the servers have been connected to since system was restarted.
System has been  running for approximately 4 hours and all servers start
with Windows. The VM with SuSE has been running for approxmately 2 hours.

In the attached image I have framed and starred my observations.


I want to emphatize, that I don't face any problems with this at all.  I
have 32 GB RAM and 4 CPUs each capable of processing 2 parallel threads,and
I can run  Windows 7 with all the servers you see (and simultaneously use
the system iinteractively for Internet browsing, playing media, processing
photos, document creation/editing and what else you would do with a desktop
system), as well as have the two VMs (both configured with an upper
resource limit of 24 GB RAM and 6 CPU threads).

The memory may be released if it is required by other processes. I don't
think it is a problem to use memory if it is available if it will be
released when it is required elsewhere (on the opposite it was a little
expensive, so it would be a shame if it was not used at all!)

But still I find the find the MariaDB 10.1 number for memory use so much
*off* as compared to comparable servers, that I think I should mention the
observation here. IMO it should be understood **why** it happens and next
it can be decided **if** a fix is necessary or not.


-- Peter
-- Webyog

Attachment: processes.jpg
Description: JPEG image