Yea I didn't notice anything either, but htop conky and the gnome system monitor all report increased ram usage with this updated.
Another oddity is that the ttys on the systems that are upgraded also stop working. Guess I'll have to be sticking to the older network manager as it has far few issues than this one does >.< Tried 0.9.0 a month back or so and had the same two issues with it as well (increased memory usage an TTYs breaking). On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Uwe Geuder < [email protected]> wrote: > On 12 December 2011 09:29, Jeff Hoogland <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Attached are the two outputs you requested, digging through them now to > see > > if I can pinpoint the issue. > > > > Did you find out anything? > > I converted the outputs to csv, loaded them into an OpenOffice > spreadsheet, summed up each category of memory and compared your 2 > versions. The differences are really marginal, depending on the memory > category sometimes in favor of the old and sometimes in favor of the new > version. In terms of resident memory, which should be the most important > measure (no swapping has occured) the new version is even 792 KiB (~ 7 %) > smaller than the old one. > > Unless my conversion script really screwed up something and by accident > the bug just happened to level out your obvserved 110 MiB difference > such difference does not exist. > > If anybody wants my script and my spreadsheets to double check I can send > them by personal mail. I don't want the flood the mailing list with big > attachments, which are probably not of big interest for most > readers. (There are also other tools to read smaps files on the net, I > have never tried them.) > > Memory consumption in Linux is a tricky thing. There are many different > categories to measure (that's why smaps was added some time ago to show > them all or at least many of them). There is no single correct number. > If the tool you used to compute the 110 MiB delta shows only a single > number, are you sure the way the number is calculated has not changed > between your old and your new system? I assume you used the same tool in > the old and the new system, otherwise it's even more likely that you > ended up comparing apples and oranges. > > 110 MB difference looks huge by any measure. According to to my results > the mapped address space of the new version is "only" around 46 MiB. I > don't > think any reasonable measure can be bigger than the mapped space. (The > old one is around 45 MiB, the difference 712 KiB) > > Regards, > > Uwe > _______________________________________________ > networkmanager-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list > -- ~Jeff Hoogland <http://jeffhoogland.com/> Thoughts on Technology <http://jeffhoogland.blogspot.com/>, Tech Blog Bodhi Linux <http://bodhilinux.com/>, Enlightenment for your Desktop
_______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
