On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 22:53 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Is there a decent way to reliably track *all* memory usage within a
> GNOME application? Am I doing something wrong?
Hi,
I'm afraid that might be better to ask on a general mailing list, I do
not think many people here know much
Evolution 3.12 used to take a week or two to reach 8 or 9 GiB of
memory usage, at which point I'd have to kill it and start a new one.
Evolution 3.16 seems to manage to reach 10GiB overnight, and needs to
be killed every morning to bring my machine out of swap death.
I don't really know where a
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 11:41 -0500, Joe Shaw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 16:13 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > o. The CamelFolderSummary uses mmap. This significantly reduces memory
> > usage because an mmap is on-demand paged.
>
> Does the on-disk format of the CamelFolderSumm
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 11:41 -0500, Joe Shaw wrote:
Hey Joe,
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 16:13 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > o. The CamelFolderSummary uses mmap. This significantly reduces memory
> > usage because an mmap is on-demand paged.
>
> Does the on-disk format of the CamelFolderSu
Hi,
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 16:13 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> o. The CamelFolderSummary uses mmap. This significantly reduces memory
> usage because an mmap is on-demand paged.
Does the on-disk format of the CamelFolderSummary change much or at all?
In reading a summary from disk with Be
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 16:13 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> I did another round of checking where the memory of Camel is going to in
> tinymail's Camel.
>
> I have also tested its Camel with Evolution with success.
>
> Tinymail's Camel has the following features:
>
Next to these features, tinym
I did another round of checking where the memory of Camel is going to in
tinymail's Camel.
I have also tested its Camel with Evolution with success.
Tinymail's Camel has the following features:
o. The CamelFolderSummary uses mmap. This significantly reduces memory
usage because an mmap is
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 20:43 +0400, Abylai Ospan wrote:
> I'v installed new evolution 2.8.0 and memory usage is lower -
> aproximately 200 MB (at the past memory usage is 500-600 MB) but disk
> usage is greatly increased ... I'm using top to control system load
> and when evolution doing mail check
Good day !
I'v installed new evolution 2.8.0 and memory usage is lower - aproximately 200 MB (at the past memory usage is 500-600 MB) but disk usage is greatly increased ... I'm using top to control system load and when evolution doing mail check there is 0 % idle and 85% wait (disk usage):
C
