[gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms
On 2007-01-04, Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious being a resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single one of them is wrong and this myth really needs to be debunked. Here's why: I agree. I'm still using xmms so I can compare. Here are few lines from top (displaying a Mem window - 'Shift+g 3'). Both players were playing same mp3 file. PID %MEM VIRT SWAP RES CODE DATA SHR nFLT nDRT S PR %CPU COMMAND 8810 10.9 172m 62m 109m 1620 108m 9104 7790 S 15 0.0 X 11170 9.7 308m 210m 97m 80 129m 19m 8970 S 15 0.0 firefox-bin 7750 2.0 164m 143m 20m 480 41m 11m 1170 R 15 0.0 audacious 7810 1.8 49940 30m 17m 1524 9m 5016 720 S 15 0.0 emacs 7739 1.1 149m 138m 11m 984 59m 7816 490 R 15 0.0 xmms [I attempted un-wrap the TOP output] Ah, a real comparison - I don;t have xmms anymore so couldn't do the same in my post. These numbers are interesting, although audacious is using more resident memory, xmms is using way much more for DATA. IMHO audacious is using a perfectly reasonable amount of resources, considering what it's being asked to do - decode and play an mp3 file which is probably about 5M or so. Playing an mp3 file doesn't actually require much memory: PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND 3608 grante15 0 1936 748 484 S 0.7 0.0 0:00.19 mpg123 All that memory is for GUI bells and whistles. The memory required to play an MP3 file is measured in KB not in MB. Incidentally, I just did a similar comparison on my machine between audacious and amarok, and found that amarok consistently uses at least 2.2 times the amount of memory that audacious does. And I've never heard anyone call amarok a resource-hog. Amarok is a resource-hog. ;) Although audacious eats twice more resident memory than xmms, I think it's not that bad to call it 'resource hog'. You can see real resource hogs on the first two lines. :-) Very true, but there is little alternative to X and Firefox. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! RELAX!!... This at is gonna be a HEALING visi.comEXPERIENCE!! Besides, I work for DING DONGS! -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms
On 2007-01-04, Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thanks, nice to have some terminal ouput sent along to substantiate this discussion! i like the 'mem window' a lot. top is cool... VMS used to have a very cool program that would watch the address space of a specified process. It displayed a live status in a rectangular array on a terminal with a character for each page's status (readable, writable, dirty, swapped out, etc.). IIRC there was an @ that showed the page contained the program counter. The display updated several times per second, and it was pretty interesting to watch long-running programs (compiles, LaTeX runs, etc.). I've always sort of kept an eye out for something like that for Linux, but have never stumbled acrosss anything... -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! .. I see TOILET at SEATS... visi.com -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms
On 2007-01-03, Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 03 January 2007 15:17, Nelson, David (ED, PARD) wrote: I moved to amarok, I might give audacious a shot. What about noatun for a smallish player? Not sure on it's RAM usage. Also look at Quod Libet or Banshee which are meant to be similar in features to amarok but lighter in terms of resource usage (or so I hear). David David, this reply isn't directed at you. You just happen to be the most recent post and a convenient reply point. Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious being a resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single one of them is wrong and this myth really needs to be debunked. Here's why: Look at the libs it links against: [...] It's those libs that are using the memory, not audacious. Those are shared libs, meaning many other apps on the system use them That's only relevent if there are other apps running that use those libraries. Even if you assume they _are_ all used by other apps, audacious still uses huge amounts of non-shared memory: Here's my top display sorted by memory usage: PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND 2743 root 15 0 56604 33m 9.9m S 0.0 2.2 10:59.72 X 20384 grante15 0 58696 14m 9696 R 0.0 1.0 0:00.54 audacious 2771 grante15 0 32796 12m 7968 S 0.0 0.8 0:04.56 xfce4-session 2782 grante15 0 31176 9784 6968 S 0.0 0.6 0:04.66 xfce4-panel 7195 root 18 0 20692 9200 4476 S 0.0 0.6 0:00.41 apache2 2784 grante15 0 32304 9096 7076 S 0.0 0.6 0:31.95 gkrellm 2773 grante15 0 30912 8876 5832 S 0.0 0.6 0:03.89 xfce-mcs-manage 2780 grante18 0 13508 8352 6052 S 0.0 0.5 0:09.53 xfdesktop 7696 roundup 18 0 11400 7268 1464 S 0.0 0.5 0:00.41 roundup-server 2778 grante15 0 12488 7148 5740 S 0.0 0.5 0:07.98 xftaskbar4 18057 apache17 0 20692 6672 1924 S 0.0 0.4 0:00.00 apache2 18058 apache20 0 20692 6672 1924 S 0.0 0.4 0:00.00 apache2 18059 apache19 0 20692 6672 1924 S 0.0 0.4 0:00.00 apache2 The X server is using 56M of virtual memory with 33M resident and 10M shared. Audacious is using 58M of with 14M resident and 10M shared. and the total memory they consume is used by all apps that use the libs. And, every one of those libs (apart from libaudacious) can reasonably be expected to be in use already on any desktop machine running X Nonsense. Audacious is using 44MB of non-shared virtual memory on my system. 44MB out of 58MB is not shared. Here's 'free' before and after I started audacious in another session: nazgul ~ # free total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 20769841844696 232288 0 246056 1220848 -/+ buffers/cache: 3777921699192 Swap:0 0 0 nazgul ~ # free total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 20769841851528 225456 0 246060 1222324 -/+ buffers/cache: 3831441693840 Swap:0 0 0 So starting audacious consumed an extra 6M of memory - that's nowhere near the 240M other posters are incorrectly stating it uses. I've no idea where the number 240M came from, you didn't hear it from me. It's about 14MB of resident (6MB reduction in free memory) on my system, which makes it the second largest memory user (second only to the X server). So, anyone that says audacious is a resource hog is plain flat out wrong You don't think that 58M of virtual memory usage isn't a resource hog when the X server only requires 56M and the next largest program is 32M? Virtual memory _is_ a resource, though not an expensive one. and does not know how the Linux virtual memory system works. It is complex and almost impossible to know what is going on at any instant in time, but that's no excuse for people being wrong by a factor of 500% -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! All this time I've at been VIEWING a RUSSIAN visi.comMIDGET SODOMIZE a HOUSECAT! -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms
Hi, On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:27:41 + (UTC) Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The X server is using 56M of virtual memory with 33M resident and 10M shared. Audacious is using 58M of with 14M resident and 10M shared. possibly shared, to be exact. Whether it actually _is_ shared is not determined by ps. and the total memory they consume is used by all apps that use the libs. And, every one of those libs (apart from libaudacious) can reasonably be expected to be in use already on any desktop machine running X Nonsense. Audacious is using 44MB of non-shared virtual memory on my system. 44MB out of 58MB is not shared. And what exactly was the nonsense? I've no idea where the number 240M came from, you didn't hear it from me. It's about 14MB of resident (6MB reduction in free memory) on my system, which makes it the second largest memory user (second only to the X server). Most probably not considering openoffice, Thunderbirg, Firefox/Opera Co, right? In order to have huge VSZ, you just have to mmap a big fat file. And there you go. And what does that mean for the memory footprint of the program? Can you now call it a resource hog? Most likely not. So, anyone that says audacious is a resource hog is plain flat out wrong You don't think that 58M of virtual memory usage isn't a resource hog when the X server only requires 56M and the next largest program is 32M? Virtual memory _is_ a resource, though not an expensive one. Errrm, to get back to my example above: Mmap'ing a file (and increasing your programs VSZ) is often much more elegant than classic procedural fseek'ing and fread'ing. Nothing, absolutely nothing makes that causing the program to become a resource hog. The VM subsystem will care that exactly those parts of the file will be cached, buffered, accessed and (if needed) copied that are used. On the opposite, if the program was programmed to overcommit absurd amounts of memory, mmap'ing wrong/unneeded files or even doesn't free() correctly, then I would agree that it's likely to be a resource hog. But your points just aren't valid by themselves for that statement here. Virtual Memory is _not_ the summed up amount of RAM and Swap. It's an abstracted memory, on kernel code layer. Also, remember that Linux has per process page tables. So VSZ isn't expensive by any means -- up to the point that the process itself reaches the system's limit for virtual memory. And what does that mean for the memory hog claim? Nothing, absolutely nothing. -hwh -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms
On 2006-12-29, Mark M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: how about media-sound/audacious ? its a nice and lightweight player. Lightweight?? It's the biggest virtual memory user on my system with a virtial set size of 58M and resident set size of 14M. The only thing with a slightly larger resident size is the X server. Audacious takes three times as much memory as Apache. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Do you have exactly at what I want in a plaid visi.compoindexter bar bat?? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms
On 12/29/06, Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2006-12-29, Mark M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: how about media-sound/audacious ? its a nice and lightweight player. Lightweight?? It's the biggest virtual memory user on my system with a virtial set size of 58M and resident set size of 14M. The only thing with a slightly larger resident size is the X server. Audacious takes three times as much memory as Apache. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Do you have exactly at what I want in a plaid visi.compoindexter bar bat?? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list My bet, sorry. Still nice one ;)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms
He may have meant lightweight as in easy to use. And compared to mplayer it is lightweight on the memory side. On 12/29/06, Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2006-12-29, Mark M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: how about media-sound/audacious ? its a nice and lightweight player. Lightweight?? It's the biggest virtual memory user on my system with a virtial set size of 58M and resident set size of 14M. The only thing with a slightly larger resident size is the X server. Audacious takes three times as much memory as Apache. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Do you have exactly at what I want in a plaid visi.compoindexter bar bat?? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- Ryan Crisman
[gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms
On 2006-12-29, Ryan Crisman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He may have meant lightweight as in easy to use. And compared to mplayer it is lightweight on the memory side. On my system mplayer uses about 1/3 the memory that audacious does, but that's the non-gui version of mplayer -- I don't think I've got a GUI for it installed. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Hey, I LIKE that at POINT!! visi.com -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms
On Friday 29 December 2006 18:50, Mark M wrote: On 12/29/06, Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2006-12-29, Mark M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: how about media-sound/audacious ? its a nice and lightweight player. Lightweight?? It's the biggest virtual memory user on my system with a virtial set size of 58M and resident set size of 14M. The only thing with a slightly larger resident size is the X server. Audacious takes three times as much memory as Apache. PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND 10124 michael 15 0 113m 30m 22m R 0.5 4.9 0:02.38 amarokapp and that's when it's not playing anything! When streaming the %CPU goes up to 8.5-9.0. I'm missing xmms too. I hope xmms2 will eventually be developed enough to use as a stable package, but without the bloatware that winamp has become. -- Regards, Mick pgpvV9tFaL59P.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms
On 2006-12-29, Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: how about media-sound/audacious ? its a nice and lightweight player. Lightweight?? It's the biggest virtual memory user on my system with a virtial set size of 58M and resident set size of 14M. The only thing with a slightly larger resident size is the X server. Audacious takes three times as much memory as Apache. PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND 10124 michael 15 0 113m 30m 22m R 0.5 4.9 0:02.38 amarokapp Damn. Compared to that, I guess audacious is lightweight. I probably need to re-calibrate my weight-meter. and that's when it's not playing anything! When streaming the %CPU goes up to 8.5-9.0. I'm missing xmms too. I hope xmms2 will eventually be developed enough to use as a stable package, but without the bloatware that winamp has become. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Should I get at locked in the PRINCICAL'S visi.comOFFICE today -- or have a VASECTOMY?? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms
On Friday 29 December 2006 14:42, Mick wrote: I'm missing xmms too. I hope xmms2 will eventually be developed enough to use as a stable package, but without the bloatware that winamp has become. xmms2 is nothing like the first version. It is a client / daemon setup really. Few users of xmms1 would enjoy it. -- 99% of politicians make the rest look bad. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
