Re: Increased RAM usage with nm-applet 0.8.0 to 0.8.1

[Jeff Hoogland <JeffHoogland Linux com>]

Yea I didn't notice anything either, but htop conky and the gnome system monitor all report increased ram usage with this updated.

Another oddity is that the ttys on the systems that are upgraded also stop working. Guess I'll have to be sticking to the older network manager as it has far few issues than this one does >.<

Tried 0.9.0 a month back or so and had the same two issues with it as well (increased memory usage an TTYs breaking).

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Uwe Geuder <networkmanagerList-ugeuder snkmail com> wrote:

On 12 December 2011 09:29, Jeff Hoogland <JeffHoogland Linux com> wrote:

> Attached are the two outputs you requested, digging through them now to see
> if I can pinpoint the issue.
>

Did you find out anything?

I converted the outputs to csv, loaded them into an OpenOffice
spreadsheet, summed up each category of memory and compared your 2
versions.  The differences are really marginal, depending on the memory
category sometimes in favor of the old and sometimes in favor of the new
version. In terms of resident memory, which should be the most important
measure (no swapping has occured) the new version is even 792 KiB (~ 7 %)
smaller than the old one.

Unless my conversion script really screwed up something and by accident
the bug just happened to level out your obvserved 110 MiB difference
such difference does not exist.

If anybody wants my script and my spreadsheets to double check I can send
them by personal mail. I don't want the flood the mailing list with big
attachments, which are probably not of big interest for most
readers. (There are also other tools to read smaps files on the net, I
have never tried them.)

Memory consumption in Linux is a tricky thing. There are many different
categories to measure (that's why smaps was added some time ago to show
them all or at least many of them). There is no single correct number.
If the tool you used to compute the 110 MiB delta shows only a single
number, are you sure the way the number is calculated has not changed
between your old and your new system? I assume you used the same tool in
the old and the new system, otherwise it's even more likely that you
ended up comparing apples and oranges.

110 MB difference looks huge by any measure. According to to my results
the mapped address space of the new version is "only" around 46 MiB. I don't
think any reasonable measure can be bigger than the mapped space. (The
old one is around 45 MiB, the difference 712 KiB)

Regards,

Uwe
_______________________________________________
networkmanager-list mailing list
networkmanager-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

-- 
~Jeff Hoogland
Thoughts on Technology, Tech Blog
Bodhi Linux, Enlightenment for your Desktop