Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 19:30:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Tao <taob@io.org> To: dyson@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Memory leak or reporting problem in 2.2-960501-SNAP? Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.92.960609192111.8414B-100000@zap.io.org> In-Reply-To: <199606092253.RAA29425@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 9 Jun 1996, John S. Dyson wrote:
>
> The RSS refers to the pages mapped into the process, but those pages
> may or may not be "active." Active has to do with the in-memory
> priority (sort of). Whether or not a page is mapped has little to
> do with that.
So what should I trust if I'm evaluating the memory load on a
server? 'ps' obviously does not account for all aspects of memory
usage. I always found the breakdown in 'top' to be quite useful,
except for this one instance showing 91M active with only ~50 httpd's
and ~20 ftpd's running.
> EEEK!!! I think that I have a fix for that, that I am willing to commit
> to -current.
Goody. :)
> 2.2-current is MUCH MUCH better in the VM arena than snap right now.
> I have been holding off anything but simple bug fixes in current, and
> I'll commit the proposed (maybe) fix for that tonight (Sun.)
Quick questions here (and I guess this goes back to the -stable
vs. -current discussion elsewhere)... I'm running a 2.2-SNAP and not
the recently released 2.1-SNAP. To which snapshot are you referring?
> It has been very painful, but the VM code is better than it has ever
> been (except for perhaps a few lurking bugs.)
Cool, and here I thought FreeBSD's VM was already pretty much
state-of-the-art in terms of speed and efficiency. :) Thanks.
--
Brian Tao (BT300, taob@io.org, taob@ican.net)
Systems and Network Administrator, Internet Canada Corp.
"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.92.960609192111.8414B-100000>