It wasn’t much though and it never bloated, even when running for over a whole month.
Did you actually check on it, or did you just not notice a problem so you’re stating this? No offense, but you haven’t verified anything, and seem to just be recalling there wasn’t a problem.
I mean, what is “not much,” to you? Because I asked someone else what it was using who also thought it was running well for them, and after only 1 day of uptime it was idle at 350MB of RAM… which is way too high for an idle search engine in my opinion. Another thing, if you were running it in a docker container and had it set to restart=unless-stopped it could have been restarting without you even knowing about it.
No, I didn’t check because it never got so big to the point where it would become suspicious to me that something might be wrong. Maybe it uses more RAM than other self-hosted search engines but it never leaked memory so it used more and more RAM the longer the instance ran. Just because it uses much RAM it doesn’t mean it’s leaking memory. It might just be developed badly, not very caring about your ressources.
Yes, because as I said it’s not a memory leak. I would have noticed a memory leak because I keep an eye on the ressources of my NAS (on which my SearXNG instance was hosted) and I didn’t notice an usual growing consumption of my RAM. I just didn’t check the consumption of RAM on each individual container that was running. I would have done that if I would have noticed an unusual consumption of RAM.
Look, I can’t give you more detailled information than this because it’s all from my memories. All I wanted to do was to help as good as I can by answering from my experiences. If that doesn’t help or is inappropriate to you I’m sorry. I didn’t want to offend you or anything like that.
It doesn’t help, because I can’t trust it’s accurate, and neither should you. As I said, you can’t recall what the container was using, you can’t tell me any specific numbers like what you might consider to be too high, so how do you expect me to trust that you definitely, for sure would have noticed something that might have been as small as a 300MB swing?
Do you understand how this is not helpful in any way now?
Do you understand how this is not helpful in any way now?
No, because you’re just talking about how much RAM SearXNG consumes. In your original post you were complaining about a memory leak. I monitor the ressources of my NAS. Even after a restart of my NAS where every container was freshly started the RAM consumption wasn’t higher than a month later after the restart (without restarting any of the docker containers). And that is why I can with full conviction tell that my SearXNG instance didn’t leak memory.
This discussion is going nowhere from here so I’m gonna stop responding. I said everything to make my point as clear as possible. Have a nice day.
How much RAM is yours using?
None - I deleted it because I don’t use it anymore. It wasn’t much though and it never bloated, even when running for over a whole month.
Did you actually check on it, or did you just not notice a problem so you’re stating this? No offense, but you haven’t verified anything, and seem to just be recalling there wasn’t a problem.
I mean, what is “not much,” to you? Because I asked someone else what it was using who also thought it was running well for them, and after only 1 day of uptime it was idle at 350MB of RAM… which is way too high for an idle search engine in my opinion. Another thing, if you were running it in a docker container and had it set to restart=unless-stopped it could have been restarting without you even knowing about it.
No, I didn’t check because it never got so big to the point where it would become suspicious to me that something might be wrong. Maybe it uses more RAM than other self-hosted search engines but it never leaked memory so it used more and more RAM the longer the instance ran. Just because it uses much RAM it doesn’t mean it’s leaking memory. It might just be developed badly, not very caring about your ressources.
And that’s all I needed to know, that is exactly what I thought, you didn’t take the time to verify anything.
Yes, because as I said it’s not a memory leak. I would have noticed a memory leak because I keep an eye on the ressources of my NAS (on which my SearXNG instance was hosted) and I didn’t notice an usual growing consumption of my RAM. I just didn’t check the consumption of RAM on each individual container that was running. I would have done that if I would have noticed an unusual consumption of RAM.
Look, I can’t give you more detailled information than this because it’s all from my memories. All I wanted to do was to help as good as I can by answering from my experiences. If that doesn’t help or is inappropriate to you I’m sorry. I didn’t want to offend you or anything like that.
It doesn’t help, because I can’t trust it’s accurate, and neither should you. As I said, you can’t recall what the container was using, you can’t tell me any specific numbers like what you might consider to be too high, so how do you expect me to trust that you definitely, for sure would have noticed something that might have been as small as a 300MB swing?
Do you understand how this is not helpful in any way now?
No, because you’re just talking about how much RAM SearXNG consumes. In your original post you were complaining about a memory leak. I monitor the ressources of my NAS. Even after a restart of my NAS where every container was freshly started the RAM consumption wasn’t higher than a month later after the restart (without restarting any of the docker containers). And that is why I can with full conviction tell that my SearXNG instance didn’t leak memory.
This discussion is going nowhere from here so I’m gonna stop responding. I said everything to make my point as clear as possible. Have a nice day.