Comments on: Plone 4: uses 29% less memory than Plone 3 http://jstahl.org/archives/2010/01/24/plone-4-uses-29-less-memory-than-plone-3-thanks-python-2-6/ Politics, the environment, technology, activism. And stuff. Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:35:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Jon Stahl http://jstahl.org/archives/2010/01/24/plone-4-uses-29-less-memory-than-plone-3-thanks-python-2-6/comment-page-1/#comment-394943 Jon Stahl Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:51:28 +0000 http://jstahl.org/?p=2124#comment-394943 <p>Hanno- Thanks for correcting me. So, in other words, Plone 4 is more memory efficient, thanks to... the Plone team! :-) Hooray us! I'll update the post accordingly!</p> Hanno-
Thanks for correcting me. So, in other words, Plone 4 is more memory efficient, thanks to… the Plone team! :-) Hooray us! I’ll update the post accordingly!

]]> By: Hanno Schlichting http://jstahl.org/archives/2010/01/24/plone-4-uses-29-less-memory-than-plone-3-thanks-python-2-6/comment-page-1/#comment-394941 Hanno Schlichting Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:26:05 +0000 http://jstahl.org/?p=2124#comment-394941 <p>I'm afraid your finding is wrong. Python 2.6 is better at garbage collection and can in many cases free memory of the process. In Python 2.4 the memory usage usually just went up over time. It's however not better at handling our base memory load.</p> <p>I made a couple of quick changes and tested Plone 4 under Python 2.4 vs. Python 2.6. While Python 2.4 isn't supported and some parts of Plone don't work with it, firing up an instance and rendering a page is still possible without too many changes.</p> <p>I'm also on Snow Leopard and have both Python's in a 64bit version. In my test Python 2.4 consumes 105.6mb where Python 2.6 consumes 113.2mb.</p> <p>So we can attribute a slight increase of memory usage to the new Python version. The decrease that overcompensates for this is all due to changes in our own code.</p> I’m afraid your finding is wrong. Python 2.6 is better at garbage collection and can in many cases free memory of the process. In Python 2.4 the memory usage usually just went up over time. It’s however not better at handling our base memory load.

I made a couple of quick changes and tested Plone 4 under Python 2.4 vs. Python 2.6. While Python 2.4 isn’t supported and some parts of Plone don’t work with it, firing up an instance and rendering a page is still possible without too many changes.

I’m also on Snow Leopard and have both Python’s in a 64bit version. In my test Python 2.4 consumes 105.6mb where Python 2.6 consumes 113.2mb.

So we can attribute a slight increase of memory usage to the new Python version. The decrease that overcompensates for this is all due to changes in our own code.

]]>