[plug] Does this appear to be a memory leak?

[Tim White]

James Devenish wrote:

>In message <4179DC2F.4090201 at tigris.org>
>on Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:21:03PM +0800, Tim White wrote:
>  
>
>>firefox windows open and I was running OO.org and FAH so I closed them
>>    
>>
>Out of curiosity: what is FAH?
>  
>
Folding At Home, Distributed Computing.

>>As all gxmms does is control xmms I think this is unreasonable. Also
>>mozilla-Thunderbird (after re-opening) is using a far bit but I believe
>>that is mainly in the shared librarys kept in memory.
>>    
>>
>(By the way: 'library' -> 'libraries', 'company' -> 'companies', etc.)
>  
>
And I actually knew that (I've just been writing up a nice long 
assignment and those words keep cropping up)

>>Is it possible that there is a memory leek in gxmms? (It was running for
>>a long time, > 43hrs of CPU time?)
>>    
>>
>
>It sounds like a memory leak. Also, if gxmms has CPU time of 43h on a
>  
>
I miss read it. It was 43m of CPU time which is still allot compared to 
other programs that had been running for a much longer real-time

>machine that has only been up for 4 days, I would rank it as an
>"intensely active" programme. I assume, therefore, that it is has been
>playing music continuously for four days. Actually, 43h of CPU time
>suggests to me that it's been affecting the responsiveness of your
>machine even without considering the memory problem. Perhaps you
>have some kind of visualisation or other calculation-intensive feature
>enabled?
>
>  
>
>>  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  SWAP COMMAND
>> 1873 tim       15   0  179m 3744  16m S  0.0  1.5  43:58.27 176m gxmms
>> 5557 tim       15   0  139m  34m  36m S  0.0 14.0   0:08.00 104m mozilla-thunder
>>    
>>
>
>Indeed, assuming you have a 32-bit system, both of those sizes look
>remarkably large. The other sizes (below) look reasonable. Although I
>don't use either of the above products, I would agree with your initial
>assessment that they are using more memory than can be reasonably
>expected. Hopefully someone else can comment about Thunderbird.
>  
>
After looking at the amount of mail handled by Thunderbird I am think it 
may be loading the indexes into memory or something. Ether that or lots 
of shared libraries. Hopefully someone else knows.

>  
>
>> 1402 root       5 -10 68684  12m  49m S  4.0  5.2 192:30.04  54m XFree86
>> 1809 tim       16   0 40380 9260  19m S  0.0  3.6   1:08.43  30m nautilus
>>-- after kill
>> 5652 tim       15   0 19036 8436  16m S  0.0  3.3   0:00.49  10m gxmms
>>
>>    
>>
Tim

-- 
Tim White
PGP/GPG id: 602E944D, Pub Key Serv: subkeys.pgp.net
Fingerprint: 04C2 9682 B7B2 3006 009D  A9F3 067E EDCD 602E 944D
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
--

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.plug.org.au/pipermail/plug/attachments/20041024/cb982181/attachment.pgp>