0

I have deployed two apps on WebFaction. The output of passenger-memory-stats contains:

    27626  261.6 MB   54.8 MB  Rack: /home/<username>/webapps/app1/current
    31603  398.5 MB   60.3 MB  Passenger RackApp: /home/<username>/webapps/app2/current

app1 was deployed with Ruby 1.9, and app2 (which is newer) was deployed with Ruby 2.0.

Is it really normal for Passenger RackApp to take up 60 MB of memory? Keep in mind that my account has only 256 MB of memory, and I plan to replace my Drupal web sites with Rails web sites.

I should note that I originally used the gem called "therubyracer" to provide the Javascript runtime for app2, but I installed node.js, removed "therubyracer" from my Gemfile, and used "bundle install" to implement this omission. Despite this improvement, Passenger RackApp still consumes 60 MB (as you can see from my above results), just as much as before. Also, these sites don't have that much traffic yet.

If it isn't normal for Passenger RackApp to use 60 MB of memory, what else can I do to reduce its memory usage WITHOUT jeopardizing performance?

jhsu802701
  • 573
  • 1
  • 7
  • 23

1 Answers1

0

Yes it is normal for RackApp to take 60MB of Private Memory as a typical single-threaded Rails application process uses 100MB of RAM on a 64-bit machine.

Tarek Koudsi
  • 141
  • 1
  • 5