On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 11:10:36PM +0100, Michael Naumann wrote: > 29.12.2002 20:06:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Land) wrote: > >Yet this grep thing happened today - I know 64MB RAM is > >not quite what you would use nowadays - but I only have > >currently a few xterms running and no fancy stuff which > >would eat up my mem (swap is nearly untouched). > > I'm fairly sure, that the memory consumption of grep is quite independent > of the number of files/dirs to be searched. Except for transferirng > memory Buffers from "free" to "cached", which can again be > viewed as free.
What makes you think this? On the first view and with my rather sparse knowledge I would assume this too. Grep only needs to extract the searched word, put it to the desired output, forget and look for the next files. Why should grep buffer anything? > Complete lockup? That's pretty strange. I'd like to know > how to reproduce this. For our companies products, we have > to be (or make) sure, that nothing alike is ever going to happen. Only and only if I change to su and do a stupid "grep -r something /*" which I would bet I didn't yesterday when searching for env variables in /etc. Doing this as a normal user grep would give a few files out and then a mem exausted err which is quite contrary to my assumption above grep shouldn't do any buffering. For overworked admins using my mashine with potato installed on this would force a hard reset because the keyboard is not being responded by the system. Didn't try a telnet though as this box not acting as a netserver yet. Robert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
