From owner-freebsd-stable  Sun Jan 28 16:44:12 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from bazooka.unixfreak.org (bazooka.unixfreak.org [63.198.170.138])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F6637B698
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:43:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id E0C203E02; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:43:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unixfreak.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id DA0923C10B; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:43:51 -0800 (PST)
To: Bill Moran <wmoran@mail.iowna.com>
Cc: stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: rpc.statd mem leak? 
In-Reply-To: Message from Bill Moran <wmoran@mail.iowna.com> 
   of "Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:49:55 EST." <3A74B023.1E2D4D4A@mail.iowna.com> 
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:43:46 -0800
From: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org>
Message-Id: <20010129004351.E0C203E02@bazooka.unixfreak.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> Is it normal for rpc.statd to soak up 257M (as reported by top in the
> size column)? [...]

Yes.  It's not actually using this memory; it just mapped 257 Mbytes
of memory into its address space so it wouldn't have to worry about
expanding its allocations if/when it comes under high load.  This
makes some sense for heavily-loaded NFS servers, but it doesn't hurt
anything on the lightly-loaded ones, so I wouldn't worry about it.

					Dima Dorfman
					dima@unixfreak.org


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message