[rabbitmq-discuss] Scalability?

Matthew Sackman matthew at lshift.net
Fri May 7 14:09:47 BST 2010

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 09:05:32AM -0400, Wayne Van Den Handel wrote:
> I argue that is a poor assumption for a default setting. Nothing should
> assume out of the box it can have 80% of physical memory (regardless of
> what is running). I hope the new persister takes away some of those
> assumptions. It should be smart enough to work with the memory
> available. 

We used to try to do this. It's basically impossible for an OS to report
how much free memory is available, especially if you want to avoid going
into swap. Hence we gave up in favour of a very simple knob that is
easily understood and easily tuned.


More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list