[vdr] Re: memory leak?

["Jamie McNaught" <jamie.mcnaught@btinternet.com>]

On solaris, top seems to get process sizes completely wrong. I don't know if
this is the same on Linux, but experience (on Solaris) has taught me not to
trust what top says. (e.g. top reports 4Gig of ram on a E450, when there is
8Gig - dmesg however gives the correct result).

Just a thought

Jamie


> -----Original Message-----
> From: vdr-bounce@linuxtv.org [mailto:vdr-bounce@linuxtv.org]On Behalf Of
> Sebastian Herp
> Sent: 25 August 2002 17:26
> To: vdr@linuxtv.org
> Subject: [vdr] Re: memory leak?
>
>
> 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)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>