[vdr] Re: memory leak?

["Sebastian Herp" <newsletter@scytheman.net>]

is it possible that this command (ps aux) is slightly inaccurate?

it tells me that httpd (apache) consumes more than 80 MB of RAM while top
insists that it consumes only 8 MB of memory. Anyone?

greetings,
Sebastian

PS.: can you trust a program with only 2 or 3 letters? ... i do not think so
... it needs at least 4 letters to be serious, "kill" f.e. is very serious
:-) SCNR (oh wait vdr .. grml .. starting it via runvdr, i guess it goes ok
:-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Guido Fiala" <gfiala@s.netic.de>
To: <vdr@linuxtv.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 6:00 PM
Subject: [vdr] Re: memory leak?


> On Sunday, 25. August 2002 17:48, Rainer Zocholl wrote:
> > gfiala@s.netic.de(Guido Fiala)  25.08.02 13:31
> >
> > Once upon a time Guido Fiala shaped the electrons to say...
> >
> > >On Sunday, 25. August 2002 13:08, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> > >> Guido Fiala wrote:
> > >>> Has someone experienced the same - after some time of operation and
> > >>> some recordings vdr showed up as 55MBytes of virtual memory?
> > >>>
> > >>> Normally it has only 8MB.
> >
> > top shows me 0.8% of 383M = 3MB for the top vdr process.
> >
> > >> Is that with the plain vanilla VDR, or with any patches?
> > >> I've never observed that here.
> > >
> > >With version 1.0.3 and single-cable-2-cards-patch.
> > >It seems as if the vm-size increases every time you start a timer but
> > >does'nt decrease on end of that recording.
> > >Same applies for VmRss but only a few kb
>
> That was inaccurate - it does'nt decrease as far as it was before.
>
> top shows ~3800 for me too.
> But try
> ps aux
>
> -it will show a very large vm-size, for me 55672. What does that mean?
> It seems however, that it doesn't increase beyond 60MB, can it be, that
the
> buffers of bdflush are assigned to vdr?
>
> (my system has 128MB only)
>
>
>
>
>