Mauricio Lin wrote:
Hi Brady,
On 7/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The following shell gets the shared values for the
first httpd process:
FIRST_HTTPD=`ps -C httpd -o pid= | head -1 | tr -d ' '`
HTTPD_STATM_SHARED=$(expr 4 '*' `cut -f3 -d' ' /proc/$FIRST_HTTPD/statm`)
Hi Brady,
On 7/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mauricio Lin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 7/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>
> >>>OK, please let us know how it goes.
> >>
> >>It went very well. I could find no problems at all.
Mauricio Lin wrote:
Hi,
On 7/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
OK, please let us know how it goes.
It went very well. I could find no problems at all.
I've updated my script to use the new method, so please merge smaps :)
Mauricio Lin wrote:
Hi,
On 7/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
OK, please let us know how it goes.
It went very well. I could find no problems at all.
I've updated my script to use the new method, so please merge smaps :)
Hi Brady,
On 7/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mauricio Lin wrote:
Hi,
On 7/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
OK, please let us know how it goes.
It went very well. I could find no problems at all.
I've updated my script to
Mauricio Lin wrote:
Hi Brady,
On 7/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following shell gets the shared values for the
first httpd process:
FIRST_HTTPD=`ps -C httpd -o pid= | head -1 | tr -d ' '`
HTTPD_STATM_SHARED=$(expr 4 '*' `cut -f3 -d' ' /proc/$FIRST_HTTPD/statm`)
Hi,
On 7/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > OK, please let us know how it goes.
>
> It went very well. I could find no problems at all.
> I've updated my script to use the new method, so please merge smaps :)
>
Hi,
On 7/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
OK, please let us know how it goes.
It went very well. I could find no problems at all.
I've updated my script to use the new method, so please merge smaps :)
http://www.pixelbeat.org/scripts/ps_mem.py
Andrew Morton wrote:
OK, please let us know how it goes.
It went very well. I could find no problems at all.
I've updated my script to use the new method, so please merge smaps :)
http://www.pixelbeat.org/scripts/ps_mem.py
Usually the shared mem reported by /proc/$$/statm
is the same as
Andrew Morton wrote:
OK, please let us know how it goes.
It went very well. I could find no problems at all.
I've updated my script to use the new method, so please merge smaps :)
http://www.pixelbeat.org/scripts/ps_mem.py
Usually the shared mem reported by /proc/$$/statm
is the same as
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Looks like it's been stable for 4 months?
>
> yup, although I don't think it's been used much.
Just a sidenote to say I should be sending you an update to it
(the /proc/$pid/smaps code) in the next couple of days, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Calculating this stuff accurately is very expensive. You'll get a better
> > answer using proc-pid-smaps.patch from -mm, but even that won't tell you
> > things about sharing levels of the pages.
>
> Great, thanks! I'll play around with this:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Calculating this stuff accurately is very expensive. You'll get a better
answer using proc-pid-smaps.patch from -mm, but even that won't tell you
things about sharing levels of the pages.
Great, thanks! I'll play around with this:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Calculating this stuff accurately is very expensive. You'll get a better
answer using proc-pid-smaps.patch from -mm, but even that won't tell you
things about sharing levels of the pages.
Great, thanks! I'll play around with this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Calculating this stuff accurately is very expensive. You'll get a better
answer using proc-pid-smaps.patch from -mm, but even that won't tell you
things about sharing levels of the pages.
Great, thanks! I'll play around with this:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks like it's been stable for 4 months?
yup, although I don't think it's been used much.
Just a sidenote to say I should be sending you an update to it
(the /proc/$pid/smaps code) in the next couple of days, but merely
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I wrote a tool to report how much RAM a
> particular program (apache for e.g.) was using:
> http://www.pixelbeat.org/scripts/ps_mem.py
>
> I was then pointed at the following:
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TopSharedMemoryBug
> which describes how
I wrote a tool to (try to) report how much RAM a
particular program (apache for e.g.) was using:
http://www.pixelbeat.org/scripts/ps_mem.py
I was then pointed at the following:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TopSharedMemoryBug
which describes how copy-on-write pages are
not counted as
I wrote a tool to report how much RAM a
particular program (apache for e.g.) was using:
http://www.pixelbeat.org/scripts/ps_mem.py
I was then pointed at the following:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TopSharedMemoryBug
which describes how copy-on-write pages are
not counted as shared since
I wrote a tool to report how much RAM a
particular program (apache for e.g.) was using:
http://www.pixelbeat.org/scripts/ps_mem.py
I was then pointed at the following:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TopSharedMemoryBug
which describes how copy-on-write pages are
not counted as shared since
I wrote a tool to (try to) report how much RAM a
particular program (apache for e.g.) was using:
http://www.pixelbeat.org/scripts/ps_mem.py
I was then pointed at the following:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TopSharedMemoryBug
which describes how copy-on-write pages are
not counted as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote a tool to report how much RAM a
particular program (apache for e.g.) was using:
http://www.pixelbeat.org/scripts/ps_mem.py
I was then pointed at the following:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TopSharedMemoryBug
which describes how copy-on-write
22 matches
Mail list logo
