From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 18 21:16:12 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA0D16A406 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:16:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from shoesoft@gmx.net) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C94713C45E for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:16:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from shoesoft@gmx.net) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2007 21:16:10 -0000 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19zjutYQe5zdoiOh4scwuOatUOlLMYIumO7kYE2Jj mU/JcToG6T4Wr1 From: Stefan Ehmann To: Kris Kennaway Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:16:07 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <200703181619.53167.shoesoft@gmx.net> <20070318192519.GA29343@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20070318192519.GA29343@xor.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703182216.09548.shoesoft@gmx.net> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Possible memory leak? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:16:12 -0000 On Sunday 18 March 2007 20:25:19 Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 04:19:52PM +0100, Stefan Ehmann wrote: > > Sometimes I'm noticing very high memory usage. Nearly my whole memory > > (1GB) is used although I'm running my usual set of processes - normally > > memory usage is much lower. > > > > I killed most processes but memory usage remains high. > > > > Summing the VSZ values of the ps aux output gives about 34MB. top reports > > 316MB active memory. > > > > Where did my memory go? Are there any tools for debugging this? > > This is a FAQ. "free memory is wasted memory". Sorry for the noise. I somehow thought that's only true for inactive/cache memory and active is different - but obviously I was wrong.