On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 12:05:20AM +0100, Jano wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 08:46:14PM +0100, Jano wrote: > >> Bob Ham wrote: > >> > >> > I think there are deeper issues to deal with. Even disregarding the > >> > database, fred's memory footprint is massive. For the functionality > >> > that it provides, it seems to me to be excessive. I can't understand > >> > why fred would need anything in excess of a few 10s of megabytes. > >> > Where is this memory going? > >> > >> I agree here. BDB seems a mature database; switching databases without > >> really isolating the culprit seems premature. > > > > Bob's "deeper issues" are illusory; local configuration problems. > > > > BDB uses 54MB when I have told it to use 20MB. That is the issue here. > > BDB is responsible for the majority of Fred's memory usage as of now as > > far as I can see. > > But why? Can we be sure that the fault is not in some kind of misuse of BDB > instead of being intrinsic to BDB?
How to identify such misuse? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20070202/9c7578d8/attachment.pgp>
