On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 11:04, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: > > > >That is not evidence of a memory leak. It is evidence of as lot of memory > >being used at runtime which is a very different thing. > > > > > > > BTW, what IS the evidence of memory leak?
There is no substantiated evidence at this point. > Would you call memory usage of 128MB leak? > Would you call clamd memory usage of 3GB leak? Neither. I would call losing reference to allocated memory a memory leak. > Is there anumber which says "x amount of memory used by clamd is normal" ? No, it depends entirely upon your usage. > I know that the amount of memory used should be varied depending on > system activity, > but when clamd uses 1 or 2 GB memory when it does nothing (well, it WAS > very busy > earlier, but it's doing nothing now) is _weird_ If you're scanning multiple 1GB files concurrently, then your going to use 1-2GB of memory. It's up to your systems malloc/free implementation to decide when memory is released back to the system, not clams. So memory not going down during inactive periods is not "_weird_", it is entirely normal behaviour. -trog
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
