This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
C# memory leak?
Sorry if this is not the right place to post this, seeing as it's not strictly code related.
Basically, since the beginning of this work, a program which has worked flawlessly before has suddenly started throwing Out of Memory exceptions. After checking out the usage, I discovered the memory usage increases by a ridiculous 1mb per second! This happens on a part of the program that iterates over a collection, and calls many different methods - so it seems like these objects are staying in memory even after use.
What does this issue sound like to everyone else? I've been debugging the code, ensuring nothing's left open and all is disposed, but to no avail. I'm wondering if perhaps the .NET framework on the computer it runs from has become corrupt, and the garbage collection isn't running.
I plan to test on another computer later to hopefully prove this theory
Garbage collection will only clear up objects in the heap with no references left to them. Although you've ensured you're disposing everything it'll also be an idea to specifically null any of these references to objects after use.
Perhaps you can post the troublesome code?
Have a look at dotTrace tool. 10 days trial version is available.
Using it you can track what keeps the object reference to objects that should be removed from memory.
Related
This question already has an answer here:
Monitoring Garbage Collector in C#
(1 answer)
Closed 5 years ago.
After I handle all memory leaks in my application I experience a time to time freeze , most of the freeze happens on weak PC's
I thinking it's exactly the time when GC starts to work.
can I monitor GC invoke time to be sure that that's the problem
Thanks.
There are a number of performance counter related to GC: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/x2tyfybc(v=vs.71).aspx
In your case, you should watch the value of # Gen 2 Collections and see if it increases when you experience the freeze. Note that it could also be gen 0 or 1 collections, but they're much less likely to cause a noticeable freeze.
This question already has answers here:
Is there an event for when garbage collection occurs in .NET?
(5 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I was just wondering if there is an overridable callback for the garbage collector begin/end in the .NET runtime/C#. I will also state that I have no intentions of attempting to control the GC, I am just curious.
And if not, what would be the best way to replicate this behavior?
You can't get notification directly in manged code because managed code is suspended (or at least not guaranteed to run your thread in case of background GC) during GC.
Options:
You can get approximate notification with GC.RegisterForFullGCNotification as shown in
Garbage Collection Notifications article.
You can watch performance counters related to GC if you need approximate time.
You can also capture ETW events to analyze behavior off-line - Garbage Collection ETW Events. There are many links on how to do that - Windows Performance Toolkit and SO questions like Consuming "Event Tracing for Windows" events.
If really necessary you can host CLR yourself and than you'll get notifications about GC - see CLR Indie Out:Hosting CLR and CLR Hosting - part 3. The ultimate method you want when hosting CLR to capture start/end of GC - IHostGCManager::SuspensionStarting.
This question already has answers here:
How to get memory available or used in C#
(6 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I'm creating a server (Console App), but after doing some long-term testing I found out it grows eating RAM. For the local test suite, I am not working with much RAM
(8GB-DDR3 #2400MHz)Is there a way (In Program.cs, I assume) to restart the program if it is using over 'x' amount of RAM? Also, one way could be a timed loop/checkup?
You can use GC.GetTotalMemory. It returns an approximate value (long) of how much memory your program has allocated.
You can create a Timer object and make this comparison under the Tick event handler.
For more information, you can look here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.gc.gettotalmemory.aspx
I agree with what others have said about fixing your memory leak.
If you want to restart your program, create a second application that monitors the first process. Then, when memory gets too high in your original app, safely shut it down and allow the second application to launch it again.
This question already has answers here:
Are there any differences between Java's "synchronized" and C#'s "lock"?
(3 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I'm wondering if there is any difference in runtime at lock vs syncronized.
I have learnd that syncronized is a slow operation and outdated at Java.
Today I saw the lock at C# and I'm wondering if they are the same and lock is something I "want" to avoid same as in Java or maybe he is much faster and I want to use it...
Thanks!
1 synchronized is not outdated, java.util.concurrent.locks package simply provides extended functions which are not always needed.
2 Locking is done at CPU level and there is no difference between Java and C# in this regard
see http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/jsr-133-faq.html
... special instructions, called memory barriers, are required to flush or invalidate the local processor cache in order to see writes made by other processors or make writes by this processor visible to others. These memory barriers are usually performed when lock and unlock actions are taken; they are invisible to programmers in a high level language.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I have read a lot of .NET performance articles that describe Gen1,Gen2 garbage collection and objects surviving the generations.
Why does objects survives the collection?
What is pinning?
One reason you have multiple generations in a garbage collector is to avoid losing memory to fragmentation.
Every function call can mean the creation and deletion collection of multiple objects, and so the memory heap for your program tends to fragment very quickly. This leaves holes behind that aren't very usable. The result is that your program needs to be periodically de-fragmented, just like a hard disk. This is part of what happens during a collection.
When an object survives a collection, it is moved to a longer-lived generation on the theory that if it survived one collection it will probably survive others. Thus the later generations have less turn-over and don't fragment as much. This means your program spends less time overall juggling things around to clean up holes and wastes less memory. This is also an improvement over traditional memory management (malloc/free or new/delete), which left it up to the operating system to manage any memory fragmentation.
The reason an object survives collection is because there is something somewhere that is still "in scope" and holds a reference to that object. There are a few ways you can cause this to happen and then forget about the reference, so it is possible to "leak" memory in managed code.
Sometimes people are tempted to call GC.Collect() in an effort to get the garbage collector to clean something up. Perhaps they've discovered they have a leak, or think memory is becoming over-fragmented. You should resist those urges. While garbage collection in .Net is not perfect, is it very good, and it's almost certainly much better at cleaning up memory than you are. Odds are that if an object can and should be collected, it will be. Remember that calling GC.Collect() can actually make things worse by helping the garbage collector move objects up to a higher generation, and thus keeping them around for longer than they otherwise would be.
Instead, if you suspect you have a leak, look to your own code for something like a global or static variable that might hold a reference to a lot of other items. The only time you should call GC.Collect() is when you have information about the nature of the program that is not available to the garbage collector, and that's pretty rare as the GC knows every reference you've created.
"Pinning" is for when you need to pass an object to an unmanaged library. The garbage collector can move an object's physical location in memory, and so you need to "pin" it in one place or the pointer used by the unmanaged library could become invalid. A pinned object cannot be collected, and so you shouldn't pin an object for any longer than necessary.
http://blogs.msdn.com/maoni/ is a good resource.
Asking questions here helps too :)
For your questions:
Why do objects survive the collection:
Objects survive a collection when they are "live objects", or "Reachable objects". Reachable objects are objects where there is a reference to them from another object that is on:
The stack
The finalization queue
another object in a higher generation ( for example a Gen2 Object holding a reference to a Gen0 Object )
The handle table ( a data structure used by the CLR, and require a seperate post on its own:) )
What is Pinning:
Pinning means making sure the object doesn't move in memory. objects move in memory as a result of a compacting GC, you can create a GCHandle of typed pinned if you want to pin an object, pinning also happens automatically behind the sciene for objects that are passed to native code via PInvoke ( like strings that are passed as output, the internal buffer gets pinned during the call to PInvoke ).
Check out http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.runtime.interopservices.gchandle.aspx for a good example about GCHandle.
Pinning is used to keep the garbage collector from relocating objects. It can hurt performance by restricting what the garbage collector can do. In general pinned objects should be pinned for as short as time as possible.