On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 22:18 -0600, D. Stimits wrote:

> There could be a mix of a gimp bug, and definitely some portion of my 
> plug-in. Although I know for a fact that I had a memory leak that was my 
> fault, the reaction to the leak was unexpected. The system in question 
> has only a /boot and /, with well in excess of 30 GB unused (lots of 
> inodes as well). For a moment I thought that perhaps it was a max open 
> file descriptor limit...which it could still be, but the system itself 
> has a default setting of a max of around 76,618. The thing I did not 
> expect was that it had well over a gig of ram left unused, no swap used, 
> 30 gig of unused drive, and it still thought the hard drive was full. On 
> the other hand, it might not be worth pursuing when it requires a memory 
> leak for it to show up.

How is that unexpected behavior? That's exactly what I would expect if
you configure the GIMP tile-cache-size to be smaller than the amount of
physical memory. GIMP will then start to swap tiles out even before it
runs out of memory. And if you don't delete images, you will end up with
your harddisk filled up.


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to