> I also didn't found KSM to be big memory saver, I guess that preforking > nature of uWSGI already provides big savings - interpreter memory is > already deduplicated since fork() is handled by copy-on-write under linux. >
+1 of about 1000 uWSGI+KSM installation, i think less than 5% are really getting sensible gain from it. But it does not hurt, so i generally continue to enable it. Another bet for the future is the 2.1 forkserver: https://github.com/unbit/uwsgi-docs/blob/master/ForkServer.rst it allows the sysadmin to define in which "place" of the app to fork(). This could be another way for saving memory (or higly reducing startup times) -- Roberto De Ioris http://unbit.it _______________________________________________ uWSGI mailing list [email protected] http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
