On Sunday 15 January 2006 21:24, Jason Dagit wrote: > On Jan 15, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Aggelos Economopoulos wrote: > > On Sunday 15 January 2006 05:04, Jason Dagit wrote: > >> Peak RES (as measured by top) > >> orig: 940MB > >> no-reread: 950MB > >> > >> Peak VIRT (as measured by top) > >> orig: 1756MB > >> no-reread: 1289MB > >> > >> When I realized that orig had consumed more time and space than no- > >> reread I killed it so I'm not sure where it would have peaked or how > >> much time it would have taken to reach that peak. > > > > Err, according to your numbers, Peak RSS was larger for no-reread, > > so orig did > > _not_ consume greater max memory up to that point (I'm not claiming > > that it > > wouldn't). Peak VIRT is generally not indicative of actual memory > > usage. > > Well, if you want to ignore VIRT, then the two versions come with in > 10megs of each other out of almost 1GB, and yet orig was still > running after 5 hours. I don't see how that can be preferred.
Never said I prefer one behaviour over the other. All I'm saying is that since you obviously care about improving darcs in this case, *you* want to ignore VIRT and make proper measurements. > I > would also imagine the reason both versions don't use more RSS is > because I only have 1GB of ram. How is peak RSS meaningful then? You might want to try using the extra fields in top and maybe take a look in /proc/$pid (assuming you're running linux) if you want a more accurate view of things (wrt. to memory usage). Or try Juliusz's suggestion. HTH, Aggelos _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
