russ, sorry about the delay in answering but i've been pretty busy and i thought that i'd suffered a brain fart. i /thought/ i saw that the size of 9pserve was 137M not 137k, as the email seems to indicate. (ps seems to be confused.)
however, i found the core today and it's nearly 190M. it grew 45M in the two hrs i was away from my computer before i sent gdb after it. what should i be looking at in this core? erik Russ Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes | | > ; ps auxwww | grep 9pserv | > quanstro 4432 0.0 0.4 137036 1140 tty1 Sl Sep17 0:42 9pserve -u unix!/tmp/ns.quanstro.:0/plumb | > quanstro 19386 0.2 0.2 84180 760 pts/32 Sl 14:09 0:00 9pserve -u unix!/tmp/ns.quanstro.:0/acme | > quanstro 19453 0.0 0.1 1524 500 pts/4 S+ 14:10 0:00 grep 9pserv | | This isn't convincing that there's a memory leak. | Maybe you've just had more simultaneous messages | outstanding than acme connections. I on the other | hand run a lot of wins all the time, so my acme 9pserve is | bigger. | | rsc 4410 09:32 0:00 732K Sleep 9pserve -u unix!/tmp/ns.x40/factotum | rsc 4506 09:32 0:00 772K Sleep 9pserve -u unix!/tmp/ns.x40/plumb | rsc 4560 09:32 0:15 904K Sleep 9pserve -u unix!/tmp/ns.x40/acme | | I tried to reproduce this using plumber but can't find anything: |
