From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 30 16:56:28 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 BF32BC4B for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:56:28 +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 4763A8FC0A for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:56:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Octca64MkIV.tdx.co.uk (octa64.tdx.co.uk [62.13.130.232]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.tdx.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/) with ESMTP id q9UGuQU8057596 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:56:26 GMT Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:56:58 +0000 From: Karl Pielorz To: Erich Dollansky Subject: Re: Threaded 6.4 code compiled under 9.0 uses a lot more memory?.. Message-ID: <615577FED019BCA31EC4211B@Octca64MkIV.tdx.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20121030194307.57e5c5a3@X220.ovitrap.com> References: <20121030182727.48f5e649@X220.ovitrap.com> <20121030194307.57e5c5a3@X220.ovitrap.com> 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 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org 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 16:56:28 -0000 --On 30 October 2012 19:43 +0700 Erich Dollansky wrote: >> Depends how you mean 'the same' - on the 6.4 system it shows: >> >> cc (GCC) 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305 >> >> And, on the 9.0-S it shows: >> >> cc (GCC) 4.2.1 20070831 patched [FreeBSD] >> >> So 'same' - but different versions. >> > did you check the default data sizes? How do you mean? >> Now they've been running for an hour or so - they've gotten a little >> larger 552M/154M and 703M/75M. >> >> If it's not harmful I can live with it - it was just a bit of a >> surprise. > > And a reason to spend more money on memory. Knowing the real reason > would be better. > > I can understand your surprise. Hehe, more 'concern' than surprise I guess now... The sendmail milter has grown to a SIZE/RES of 1045M / 454M under 9.0. The original 6.4 machine under heaver load (more connections) shows a SIZE/RES of 85M/52M. The TCP listener code is now showing a SIZE/REZ of 815M/80M under 9.0 with the original 6.4 box showing 44M/9.5M The 9.0 box says it has 185M active, 472M inactive, 693M wired, 543M buf, and 4554M free. At this stage I'm just a bit concerned that at least the milter code is going to grow, and grow - and die. I would think it would last over night so I'll see what the figures are in the morning. Thanks for the replies... -Karl