Re: grep memory footage

2001-10-04 Thread Guido van Rooij
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:49:49AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: > > It's a known bug in grep; there are probably a bunch of PRs outstanding > on it. We need grep to be updated. > >From looking at the source, it seems that the lates version still seems to have the same problem. The problem seems

Re: grep memory footage

2001-10-04 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:49:49AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: > > > > When fgrepping a huge file (say 10GB) for a non-existing string, > > fgrep's memory size skyrockets. At a certain point in time its SIZE was 391M > > (RSS was about 30MB) and the system got rather unreponsive. The > > string was

Re: grep memory footage

2001-10-04 Thread Mike Smith
> > When fgrepping a huge file (say 10GB) for a non-existing string, > fgrep's memory size skyrockets. At a certain point in time its SIZE was 391M > (RSS was about 30MB) and the system got rather unreponsive. The > string was about 12 bytes big, and we fail to see why grep would > need so much.

grep memory footage

2001-10-04 Thread Guido van Rooij
When fgrepping a huge file (say 10GB) for a non-existing string, fgrep's memory size skyrockets. At a certain point in time its SIZE was 391M (RSS was about 30MB) and the system got rather unreponsive. The string was about 12 bytes big, and we fail to see why grep would need so much. Is there a