On Nov 21, 2007 2:40 PM, Ryan Courtnage ☠ <<a href="mailto:ryan@courtnage.ca">ryan@courtnage.ca</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Nov 21, 2007 12:00 PM, Michelle Cox <<a href="mailto:mcox@charter.net">mcox@charter.net</a>> wrote:<br>> I have nearly 100 projects, many with multiple modules, and am not done<br>> adding, yet. It does really eat up memory like crazy but I haven't heard a
<br>> solution to it. The fact is that some sites, especially social networking<br>> ones, use a lot of modules. Most of them are fairly small but needed. Would<br>> combining the smaller modules into one big one help any? Or would that still
<br>> use the same amount of memory?<br><br></div>I have the same question. Does the number of modules enabled<br>significantly affect memory usage?<br></blockquote><div><br>Not only memory, but loading time. The php include_once() that is used to load modules is an expensive operatin.
<br><br>Both can be remedied (to a large degree) by using an op-code cache that caches in memory (such as what APC does by default, others require certain config options).<br> <br>There is an article on 2bits coming up soon on details. Stay tuned.
<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>I tend to create tons of tiny modules, many of which do something<br>simple - like provide a single hook. If the overhead from this
<br>approach is significant, then I need to change my ways!<br><font color="#888888"><br>Ryan<br></font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br><br>><br>> Michelle<br>><br>> On 11/21/2007 12:29:46 PM, Khalid Baheyeldin (
<a href="mailto:kb@2bits.com">kb@2bits.com</a>) wrote:<br>> > (Changing the subject)<br>> ><br>> > I regularly see 80+ to 110+, and that causes Apache to eat 100MB per<br>> > process, which is really not good ...
<br>> ><br>> > This is the open buffet binge syndrome detailed here:<br>> ><br>> > <a href="http://2bits.com/articles/server-indigestion-the-drupal-contributed-" target="_blank">http://2bits.com/articles/server-indigestion-the-drupal-contributed-
</a><br>> > modules-open-buffet-binge-syndrome.html<br>> ><br>> > On Nov 21, 2007 12:50 PM, Jim Li <<a href="mailto:jimmydami@gmail.com">jimmydami@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> ><br>> > > Cool, thanks!
<br>> > ><br>> > It'd be interesting to have a poll on how many modules people use on a<br>> > > social network site. I heard someone uses 160 modules at his dev site,<br>> > > it may go down a bit later, but it probably will still in the 100+
<br>> > > ragnge :)<br>> > ><br>> > > On Nov 20, 2007 6:31 PM, Earl Miles <<a href="mailto:merlin@logrus.com">merlin@logrus.com</a>> wrote:<br>> > > > On the other hand, having 150+ modules load *is* going to eat a whole
<br>> > > > lot of memory; so actually activating all these modules is a really<br>> > > > bad<br>> > > > idea.<br>> > > ><br>> > > > And yes, the modules page under
4.7 is going to choke like [insert<br>> > > > really bad sports team metaphor here].<br>> > > ><br>> > > ><br>> > > > Sean Robertson wrote:<br>> > > > > As I understand it, Drupal 5+ no longer does that. That's
<br>> > what the<br>> ><br>><br>><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Khalid M. Baheyeldin<br><a href="http://2bits.com">2bits.com</a><br><a href="http://2bits.com">http://2bits.com
</a><br>Drupal optimization, development, customization and consulting.