Open rootfixxxer opened 1 year ago
Thank you for reporting, it looks a bug as you think. I will confirm few things to reproduce / investigate your condition:
MyType
. I guess you use loosely typed collection (dictionary) in your type.myOpenStream
.Could you give me above info?
Hello
After some more tests I found out the problem it's with the volume of data present in the stream (Network Stream), I don't know if the handling of the data can be optimized by the library, but I have this as MyType:
public class MsgPackArray
{
[MessagePackMember(0)]
public IList<List<MessagePackObject>> ListContents { get; set; }
[MessagePackMember(1)]
public ulong Location { get; set; }
}
By default, the List
When I receive objects with more than 100k of items in the ListContents that's when the memory starts to raise, and it never drops...
Thanks
Sorry, I was busy to investigate this problem, but I want to know that 1)average size of each string keys and values in dictionary and 2) bit size of your process (32 bit or 64 bit).
Because MessagePackObject
must have both of byte array (un-decoded string) and string, so it requires double size for strings, and 100K sized dictionary with few kiro bytes string causes over 2GB memory size.
You can avoid this "over sized" behavior using POCO for the list because it always has three items, like following:
public class MsgPackArray
{
[MessagePackMember(0)]
public IList<MsgPackInnerArray> ListContents { get; set; }
[MessagePackMember(1)]
public ulong Location { get; set; }
}
public class MsgPackInnerArray
{
[MessagePackMember(0)]
public byte[] First { get; set; }
[MessagePackMember(1)]
public ulong Second { get; set; }
[MessagePackMember(2)]
public Dictionary<string, string> Third { get; set; }
}
This can deserialize following structure (represented as JSON for explanation):
[
[ // begin ListContents
0123456789ABCDEF0123456789ABCDEF,
123,
{"A": "1", "B": "2", ... },
], // end ListContents
456, // Location
]
Note that you still might face to OutOfMemoryException
when you run in the 32bit process.
Or, if you want to reduce memory size anyway, you can use streaming processing using Unpacker
directly.
using (var unpacker = Unpacker.Create(myStream))
{
if (!unpacker.Read() || unpacker.LastReadData != 2 || !unpacker.IsArrayHeader) throw new Exception("Invalid input");
var msgPackArrayUnpacker = unpacker.ReadSubtree();
if (!msgPackArrayUnpacker.Read() || msgPackArrayUnpacker.LastReadData != 3 || !msgPackArrayUnpacker.IsArrayHeader) throw new Exception("Invalid input");
var first = msgPackArrayUnpacker.ReadItemData().AsBinary();
var second = msgPackArrayUnpacker.ReadItemData().AsUInt64();
if (!msgPackArrayUnpacker.Read() || !msgPackArrayUnpacker.IsMapHeader) throw new Exception( "Invalid input" );
var mapSize = msgPackArrayUnpacker.LastReadData.AsInt32();
using (var mapUnpacker = msgPackArrayUnpacker.ReadSubtree())
{
for (var i = 0; i < mapSize; i++)
{
var key = mapUnpacker.ReadItemData().AsString();
var value = mapUnpacker.ReadItemData().AsString();
// Process key and value here...
}
}
var location = msgPackArrayUnpacker.ReadItemData().AsUInt64();
}
I'm making some tests with this package and if I have a connection/stream that it's always sending data, the memory continues to raise until the system crashes.
Investigating the issue with a memory profiler I can see that it's always allocating this objects (there are others), and never disposing them:
There's something that I can do be able to use this library in the cases? Workaround?
Current usage: