Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010, Florian Philipp did opine thusly: Hi list! I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior. The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at night. free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482 Swap: 6142 978 5163 A desktop machine that has 4GB RAM and still needs to swap?! Excerpt from top: VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 1094m 484m 10m S0 12.9 96:43.01 firefox 932m 471m 15m S0 12.6 5:10.20 akregator 384m 303m 2856 S0 8.1 59:43.43 virtuoso-t 709m 282m 2936 S0 7.5 0:40.51 nepomukservices 839m 146m 15m S0 3.9 8:37.76 thunderbird-bin 191m 131m 532 S0 3.5 12:30.73 dbus-daemon 902m 105m 5288 S0 2.8 0:30.16 krunner 263m 105m 1724 S0 2.8 2:31.18 squid 255m 61m 6672 S7 1.6 305:04.24 X 1106m 55m 7756 S0 1.5 4:22.73 amarok 534m 54m 10m S0 1.5 2:33.94 kopete 559m 52m 6536 S0 1.4 56:52.37 nepomukservices 718m 38m 12m S4 1.0 143:36.62 plasma-desktop 295m 33m 2048 S0 0.9 1:59.32 mysqld 360m 17m 1856 S0 0.5 0:07.56 tomboy 445m 16m 3392 S0 0.4 38:54.36 nepomukservices 365m 14m 6356 S1 0.4 27:38.49 konsole 438m 11m 4928 S0 0.3 0:20.12 kded4 508m 11m 6364 S0 0.3 0:45.79 kwin Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic. The columns tell you the amount of memory that process can access. This is vitally important to understand. Modern memory managers in all OSes have the concept of shared code and shared memory. It would be insanely wasteful for each process to have it's own copy of all the data in RAM it ever uses. At a minimum, every process would need a full copy of glibc loaded into RAM. Here's what really happens (simplistic version): An app loads, and links to libraries it needs. They may or may not already be in RAM; if nor, they are loaded. Those binary images increase the amount of RAM the process may address. The app uses more RAM for it's own purposes (data it is using) and after a while lots of that data is still in RAM but no longer being used. When things get tight, the kernel has a good long hard look at memory usage and starts chucking bits away that can be dispensed with safely. How much control do you, the user, have over this: none whatsoever. Why: because the situation is changing millions of times a second and there's no way you can keep up. It's like your heart. You don't actually want to be bothered keeping the damn thing pumping consciously. So you let your brain stem do all that heavy lifting. With memory, the kernel is your brain stem. Your numbers above look perfectly normal. Most of that RAM can and will be dumped when something else comes along that needs it. The clincher is your swap usage. After 8 days you are using only about 12% of total which indicates the kernel is quite happily keeping everything under control and still has plenty of wiggle room left to keep you humming along nicely. The only point where this memory scheme goes wrong is when an app has a memory leak - it has finished with some data in RAM and does not release it. The chances that all your memory hogs all have leaks like this are very small. Final conclusion: you have nothing to worry about. Okay, I'm used to Firefox taking much memory. I'm okay with that since it's the most heavily used application currently running. But why does Akregator need that much memory? It doesn't even have any tabs open at the moment and is just running minimized in the background. Virtuoso looks like an optional Soprano dependency which in turn is needed for Nepomuk. Are the default use flags for dev-libs/soprano suboptimal? What happens if I choose other flags for Soprano? The rest of the list is a bit suspicious, as well. Especially DBus and Kopete look like they live way beyond their means (or my means ;) ). Do other users experience the same? Thanks in advance! Florian Philipp -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 3588 of 3754 is free, AFAIK not used at all. Plug off 3500 and sell it. If your system is slow maybe from managing all that unusued memory. ;-) Al
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Al wrote: free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 3588 of 3754 is free, AFAIK not used at all. Plug off 3500 and sell it. If your system is slow maybe from managing all that unusued memory. ;-) Al Actually, the 3588 is what is used. The 165 is what is free. Maybe the email program you are using is not lining the columns up properly. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Apparently, though unproven, at 12:37 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Al did opine thusly: free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 3588 of 3754 is free, AFAIK not used at all. Plug off 3500 and sell it. If your system is slow maybe from managing all that unusued memory. ;-) Al I think someone needs to go study how linux memory management works, and what buffers and cache really are RULE NUMBER ONE OF LINUX MEMORY: SUPERFICIAL UTILITIES LIKE free WILL *ALWAYS* REPORT ALMOST ALL MEMORY IN USE. REASON: IT *IS* IN USE. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Alan McKinnon writes: Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010, Florian Philipp did opine thusly: I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior. The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at night. free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482 Swap: 6142 978 5163 A desktop machine that has 4GB RAM and still needs to swap?! What I forgot to ask: Do you feel the performance becomes bad? Does the system feel more responsive again when you restart KDM and log in again? I don't mind the system growing swap, that's normal, but now, as soon as significant swapping starts, the system becomes slow. I don't know why. Excerpt from top: VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 1094m 484m 10m S0 12.9 96:43.01 firefox 932m 471m 15m S0 12.6 5:10.20 akregator 384m 303m 2856 S0 8.1 59:43.43 virtuoso-t 709m 282m 2936 S0 7.5 0:40.51 nepomukservices 839m 146m 15m S0 3.9 8:37.76 thunderbird-bin 191m 131m 532 S0 3.5 12:30.73 dbus-daemon 902m 105m 5288 S0 2.8 0:30.16 krunner 263m 105m 1724 S0 2.8 2:31.18 squid 255m 61m 6672 S7 1.6 305:04.24 X 1106m 55m 7756 S0 1.5 4:22.73 amarok 534m 54m 10m S0 1.5 2:33.94 kopete 559m 52m 6536 S0 1.4 56:52.37 nepomukservices 718m 38m 12m S4 1.0 143:36.62 plasma-desktop 295m 33m 2048 S0 0.9 1:59.32 mysqld 360m 17m 1856 S0 0.5 0:07.56 tomboy 445m 16m 3392 S0 0.4 38:54.36 nepomukservices 365m 14m 6356 S1 0.4 27:38.49 konsole 438m 11m 4928 S0 0.3 0:20.12 kded4 508m 11m 6364 S0 0.3 0:45.79 kwin Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic. You gave the example of Thunderbird using 150M and Firefox 180M, but together they would not use 330M because some stuff is shared. Hm, isn't this what the SHR column in top is for? In Florian's case, there is firefox with 484M in the RES column and thunderbird with 146M, but the SHA column gives 10M + 15M, so only 25M of 630M are shared? Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Am 18.09.2010 22:19, schrieb Alex Schuster: [...] I used to restart kdm once per day in order to free memory. If I did not do this, KDE4 became nearly unsusabe. Yeah, logout - logon seems to resolve my problem temporarily, as well. Now this looks different here. I have X with 946M, plasma-desktop with 505M, that's 15 times the memory you need. Then comes java with 371M (for TV-Browser - yes, 371MB just for showing the TV programme!), emerge wants 272M while emerging openoffice. Chromium also needs much memory, my 33 tabs want 762M: Wow, especially X's usage makes me wonder whether this is a kernel bug. Which is another problem I think. One question is how KDE4 can need such a lot of memory, the other is how the system can become so unresponsive once its starts swapping. I used to have larger swap with less RAM, and did not have those performance problems. One year ago I usually had 2G tmpfs for /var/tmp/portage, nowadays (with 4G) I cannot emerge things while working with the system (like, watching videos with mplayer). It feels like as soon as RAM is not enough and swapping occurs, the system swaps stuff that it will need again immediately. Hmm, maybe it is the usage pattern that matters. I guess X (or whatever gets swapped out in your case) wants to access all the data, maybe for a cyclic refresh or something, it blocks for some time. That's the good thing about normal memory leaks: Whatever is leaked, it is normally not accessed again, anyway. The system is an AMD Athlon 4850e (2 cores, 2500MHz) with 4GB of RAM. Everything is on LVM, most partitions are LUKS-encrypted. /var/tmp/portage is unencrypted, and at the moment swap is also not encrypted and on my 2nd drive. The encryption does not be much of an overhead, when the system stutters, top shows a large wa(it) value, and not much CPU usage. swappiness is set to 10. My system is nearly completely on LUKS and LVM. That doesn't seem to be the problym in my case, either. Any ideas? I might just get another 2G, and then the problems will be gone, but I think this would be only a workaround. 6G should be enough already even when using lots of applications, shouldn't it`? BTW, I emerged and tried KDE 3.5 a week ago. Cool, things were fast there. Probably because it needs less memory. But I don't want to go back. The interesting thing is that I have a netbook with a minimal KDE-4 on it. It doesn't need more than 150M of its 512M memory. Of course it doesn't have Semantic Desktop and all that but it still works good and is responsive as hell.
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Am 19.09.2010 13:34, schrieb Alex Schuster: Alan McKinnon writes: Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic. You gave the example of Thunderbird using 150M and Firefox 180M, but together they would not use 330M because some stuff is shared. Hm, isn't this what the SHR column in top is for? In Florian's case, there is firefox with 484M in the RES column and thunderbird with 146M, but the SHA column gives 10M + 15M, so only 25M of 630M are shared? I thought the SHR column is about shared memory like System-V SHM, mmap and Pipes when used for inter-process communication. But I could be wrong.
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Apparently, though unproven, at 13:34 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Alex Schuster did opine thusly: Alan McKinnon writes: Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010, Florian Philipp did opine thusly: I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior. The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at night. free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482 Swap: 6142 978 5163 A desktop machine that has 4GB RAM and still needs to swap?! What I forgot to ask: Do you feel the performance becomes bad? Does the system feel more responsive again when you restart KDM and log in again? I don't mind the system growing swap, that's normal, but now, as soon as significant swapping starts, the system becomes slow. I don't know why. It's swapping. It will become slow. Disks are millions of time slower than RAM. Excerpt from top: VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 1094m 484m 10m S0 12.9 96:43.01 firefox 932m 471m 15m S0 12.6 5:10.20 akregator 384m 303m 2856 S0 8.1 59:43.43 virtuoso-t 709m 282m 2936 S0 7.5 0:40.51 nepomukservices 839m 146m 15m S0 3.9 8:37.76 thunderbird-bin 191m 131m 532 S0 3.5 12:30.73 dbus-daemon 902m 105m 5288 S0 2.8 0:30.16 krunner 263m 105m 1724 S0 2.8 2:31.18 squid 255m 61m 6672 S7 1.6 305:04.24 X 1106m 55m 7756 S0 1.5 4:22.73 amarok 534m 54m 10m S0 1.5 2:33.94 kopete 559m 52m 6536 S0 1.4 56:52.37 nepomukservices 718m 38m 12m S4 1.0 143:36.62 plasma-desktop 295m 33m 2048 S0 0.9 1:59.32 mysqld 360m 17m 1856 S0 0.5 0:07.56 tomboy 445m 16m 3392 S0 0.4 38:54.36 nepomukservices 365m 14m 6356 S1 0.4 27:38.49 konsole 438m 11m 4928 S0 0.3 0:20.12 kded4 508m 11m 6364 S0 0.3 0:45.79 kwin Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic. You gave the example of Thunderbird using 150M and Firefox 180M, but together they would not use 330M because some stuff is shared. Hm, isn't this what the SHR column in top is for? In Florian's case, there is firefox with 484M in the RES column and thunderbird with 146M, but the SHA column gives 10M + 15M, so only 25M of 630M are shared? Yes that's true. I sucked the 150 180 numbers out of my ass. The post was to highlight common problems with reading top output, not to diagnose any problem he might be having. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Am 19.09.2010 10:25, schrieb Alan McKinnon: [...] Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic. The columns tell you the amount of memory that process can access. This is vitally important to understand. Modern memory managers in all OSes have the concept of shared code and shared memory. It would be insanely wasteful for each process to have it's own copy of all the data in RAM it ever uses. At a minimum, every process would need a full copy of glibc loaded into RAM. Here's what really happens (simplistic version): An app loads, and links to libraries it needs. They may or may not already be in RAM; if nor, they are loaded. Those binary images increase the amount of RAM the process may address. The app uses more RAM for it's own purposes (data it is using) and after a while lots of that data is still in RAM but no longer being used. When things get tight, the kernel has a good long hard look at memory usage and starts chucking bits away that can be dispensed with safely. How much control do you, the user, have over this: none whatsoever. Why: because the situation is changing millions of times a second and there's no way you can keep up. It's like your heart. You don't actually want to be bothered keeping the damn thing pumping consciously. So you let your brain stem do all that heavy lifting. With memory, the kernel is your brain stem. Your numbers above look perfectly normal. Most of that RAM can and will be dumped when something else comes along that needs it. The clincher is your swap usage. After 8 days you are using only about 12% of total which indicates the kernel is quite happily keeping everything under control and still has plenty of wiggle room left to keep you humming along nicely. The only point where this memory scheme goes wrong is when an app has a memory leak - it has finished with some data in RAM and does not release it. The chances that all your memory hogs all have leaks like this are very small. Final conclusion: you have nothing to worry about. I disagree on that last point. While it might be true that some of the statistics are not correct, I have a feeling that it is not acceptable or normal that a simple desktop system is not able to free enough memory to have more that 1/8 of it available for cache. I mean, my old system had 2 GB RAM and an equivalent Gnome system on it. It needed swap as well due to Firefox and Eclipse eating memory. But otherwise its usage was far less than what I see here.
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
On Saturday 18 September 2010, Florian Philipp wrote: Okay, I'm used to Firefox taking much memory. I'm okay with that since it's the most heavily used application currently running. But why does Akregator need that much memory? It doesn't even have any tabs open at the moment and is just running minimized in the background. so akregator has a mem leak. Kill and restart it. And before you do: bug report with kde.
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Actually, the 3588 is what is used. The 165 is what is free. Maybe the email program you are using is not lining the columns up properly. Maybe you are right. Headers out of alignment. Al
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
ok first of .. i dont run my comp (laptop) for that long, although i am planning to start using hibernate. its usually up the whole day though. secondly im on kde4.5.1 (but i dont remeber having such bad memory problems with the version your running). Krunner's neopomuk plugin leaks memory, everytime you search for something that returns any nepomuk results, krunners memory usage jumps by ~10 mb and never decreases. disable it if you have it enabled and restart it. there is a bug report here https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=224287 maybe we should file a new one. if you still want nepomuk, you can limit virtuoso-t's memory usage in nepomuk's kcm module(last tab), it usually abides by those values, however once for me it went over that and continued to grow and nepomuk became unresponsive (none of the search querries worked) and i had to kill it. ive tried to reproduce that bug to no awail. i use akregator too and i dont find it such memory hog (maybe its the version i use 4.4.6) 8009 yohan 20 0 502m 52m 20m S0 1.3 0:03.54 akregator you could try upgrading, i think i found the newer version a bit more snapiper (but thats probably psychological). this is the result of free -m total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 3928 2409 1519 0767640 -/+ buffers/cache: 1001 2926 Swap: 6981 0 6981 (i thoought i needed all that swap for hibernating and thats why its so big ) -- - Yohan Pereira.
[gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Hi list! I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior. The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at night. free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482 Swap: 6142 978 5163 A desktop machine that has 4GB RAM and still needs to swap?! Excerpt from top: VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 1094m 484m 10m S0 12.9 96:43.01 firefox 932m 471m 15m S0 12.6 5:10.20 akregator 384m 303m 2856 S0 8.1 59:43.43 virtuoso-t 709m 282m 2936 S0 7.5 0:40.51 nepomukservices 839m 146m 15m S0 3.9 8:37.76 thunderbird-bin 191m 131m 532 S0 3.5 12:30.73 dbus-daemon 902m 105m 5288 S0 2.8 0:30.16 krunner 263m 105m 1724 S0 2.8 2:31.18 squid 255m 61m 6672 S7 1.6 305:04.24 X 1106m 55m 7756 S0 1.5 4:22.73 amarok 534m 54m 10m S0 1.5 2:33.94 kopete 559m 52m 6536 S0 1.4 56:52.37 nepomukservices 718m 38m 12m S4 1.0 143:36.62 plasma-desktop 295m 33m 2048 S0 0.9 1:59.32 mysqld 360m 17m 1856 S0 0.5 0:07.56 tomboy 445m 16m 3392 S0 0.4 38:54.36 nepomukservices 365m 14m 6356 S1 0.4 27:38.49 konsole 438m 11m 4928 S0 0.3 0:20.12 kded4 508m 11m 6364 S0 0.3 0:45.79 kwin Okay, I'm used to Firefox taking much memory. I'm okay with that since it's the most heavily used application currently running. But why does Akregator need that much memory? It doesn't even have any tabs open at the moment and is just running minimized in the background. Virtuoso looks like an optional Soprano dependency which in turn is needed for Nepomuk. Are the default use flags for dev-libs/soprano suboptimal? What happens if I choose other flags for Soprano? The rest of the list is a bit suspicious, as well. Especially DBus and Kopete look like they live way beyond their means (or my means ;) ). Do other users experience the same? Thanks in advance! Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Florian Philipp writes: I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior. I was just about to write something about this. I suffered from bad performance for quite a while now (like mplayer stuttering during emerges), started a thread in in the gentoo-performance list and got some advice that made things a little better, but I suspect the effect came from reduced memory usage only. Since yesterday the problems all seem to be gone, but again it's not a real solution, as I plugged in another 2GB of memory, so now I have 6G. I used to restart kdm once per day in order to free memory. If I did not do this, KDE4 became nearly unsusabe. The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at night. free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482 Swap: 6142 978 5163 A desktop machine that has 4GB RAM and still needs to swap?! After 1 day of uptime, my system needs even more, but I'm also running some stuff. wo...@weird ~ $ free -m total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 5721 5618103 0112 1108 -/+ buffers/cache: 4397 1323 Swap: 4094 50 4044 Excerpt from top: VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 1094m 484m 10m S0 12.9 96:43.01 firefox 932m 471m 15m S0 12.6 5:10.20 akregator 384m 303m 2856 S0 8.1 59:43.43 virtuoso-t 709m 282m 2936 S0 7.5 0:40.51 nepomukservices 839m 146m 15m S0 3.9 8:37.76 thunderbird-bin 191m 131m 532 S0 3.5 12:30.73 dbus-daemon 902m 105m 5288 S0 2.8 0:30.16 krunner 263m 105m 1724 S0 2.8 2:31.18 squid 255m 61m 6672 S7 1.6 305:04.24 X 1106m 55m 7756 S0 1.5 4:22.73 amarok 534m 54m 10m S0 1.5 2:33.94 kopete 559m 52m 6536 S0 1.4 56:52.37 nepomukservices 718m 38m 12m S4 1.0 143:36.62 plasma-desktop 295m 33m 2048 S0 0.9 1:59.32 mysqld 360m 17m 1856 S0 0.5 0:07.56 tomboy 445m 16m 3392 S0 0.4 38:54.36 nepomukservices 365m 14m 6356 S1 0.4 27:38.49 konsole 438m 11m 4928 S0 0.3 0:20.12 kded4 508m 11m 6364 S0 0.3 0:45.79 kwin Now this looks different here. I have X with 946M, plasma-desktop with 505M, that's 15 times the memory you need. Then comes java with 371M (for TV-Browser - yes, 371MB just for showing the TV programme!), emerge wants 272M while emerging openoffice. Chromium also needs much memory, my 33 tabs want 762M: VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND 1722m 946m 22m R 24 16.5 217:29.77 X 1728m 504m 23m S0 8.8 61:07.82 plasma-desktop 2018m 371m 6772 S0 6.5 2:45.60 java 379m 272m 1884 S0 4.8 4:39.50 emerge 2632m 127m 11m S0 2.2 6:48.31 pica 694m 123m 21m S0 2.2 11:28.50 kontact 1246m 117m 20m S0 2.1 27:30.34 amarok 757m 101m 86m S0 1.8 116:20.68 vmware-vmx 946m 94m 10m S0 1.7 1:37.32 chrome 682m 91m 15m S0 1.6 4:22.98 chrome 494m 79m 14m S0 1.4 0:40.28 kmymoney 929m 61m 13m S0 1.1 2:29.96 chrome 328m 56m 5084 S0 1.0 1:46.09 kio_imap4 73712 49m 616 S0 0.9 0:10.79 screen 921m 48m 30m S0 0.8 0:01.62 systemsettings 573m 46m 14m S0 0.8 1:36.06 dolphin Okay, I'm used to Firefox taking much memory. I'm okay with that since it's the most heavily used application currently running. But why does Akregator need that much memory? It doesn't even have any tabs open at the moment and is just running minimized in the background. Beats me. Virtuoso looks like an optional Soprano dependency which in turn is needed for Nepomuk. Are the default use flags for dev-libs/soprano suboptimal? What happens if I choose other flags for Soprano? Don't know. But you can just turn off virtuoso in systemsettings- desktop search. I just turned it on again, and - now I need 271M of swap, and again my system becomes unresponsive due to the constant swapping that is going on. With 6G! Which is another problem I think. One question is how KDE4 can need such a lot of memory, the other is how the system can become so unresponsive once its starts swapping. I used to have larger swap with less RAM, and did not have those performance problems. One
