From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 30 11:28:59 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4AE889 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:28:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kpielorz_lst@tdx.co.uk) Received: from mail.tdx.com (mail.tdx.com [62.13.128.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CFFF8FC0C for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:28:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from MightyAtom.tdx.co.uk (storm.tdx.co.uk [62.13.130.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.tdx.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/) with ESMTP id q9UBSuwe031291 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:28:57 GMT Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:28:49 +0000 From: Karl Pielorz To: Steven Hartland , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threaded 6.4 code compiled under 9.0 uses a lot more memory?.. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:29:00 -0000 --On 30 October 2012 11:21 +0000 Steven Hartland wrote: >> They've not been running longing enough yet to see if anything is >> 'leaking' (i.e. if size/res continues to go up). Just thought I'd ask >> if there's a simple/possible explanation for this - and if it's >> something I need to worry about... > > amd64 vs i386? Nice try :) - But as I said in my original email (he says, checking again - yup it's in there ;) both the 6.4 and 9.0 systems are amd64... I'd expect the memory usage to 'go up' between the versions for the programs, I'm just concerned by the size increase... -Karl