On Saturday, November 13, 2010 05:01:36 Garry T. Williams wrote:
On Friday, November 12, 2010 17:43:56 Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2010 22:14:34 you wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko(a)gmail.com>
> > > I traced the issue down to swap usage --- after a
couple of days of
> > > running, *something* seems to gradually fill the memory with junk
> Mem: 2048088k total, 1657424k used, 390664k free, 18640k buffers
> Swap: 4192956k total, 1038432k used, 3154524k free, 566580k cached
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> 2528 vmarko 20 0 2029m 171m 19m S 1.3 8.6 564:19.55 firefox
> 2397 vmarko 20 0 366m 148m 7460 S 1.3 7.4 230:40.39 skype
> 2366 vmarko 20 0 565m 92m 3044 S 0.0 4.6 12:10.68 emerald
> 5723 vmarko 20 0 989m 82m 17m S 0.0 4.1 10:29.49 kmail
> 1739 root 20 0 471m 59m 11m S 19.9 3.0 3780:01 X
> 2021 vmarko 20 0 1380m 57m 9476 S 6.3 2.9 780:37.22 ktorrent
> 2016 vmarko 20 0 293m 42m 8176 S 0.7 2.1 137:01.00 skype
> 2222 vmarko 20 0 789m 28m 5436 S 0.0 1.4 11:05.85 cairo-dock
> 1998 vmarko 20 0 937m 20m 8824 S 4.3 1.0 804:03.95
> plasma-desktop 2603 vmarko 20 0 546m 18m 7088 S 0.0 0.9
> 1:39.64 kile
> 22635 vmarko 20 0 480m 12m 6452 S 0.7 0.6 43:06.53 konsole
> 2053 vmarko 9 -11 501m 12m 11m S 0.3 0.6 259:54.25 pulseaudio
> 10764 vmarko 20 0 455m 8572 4608 S 0.0 0.4 1:07.09 okular
> 32679 vmarko 20 0 285m 8528 5616 S 0.0 0.4 0:00.11 kio_pop3
> So what do you make of it?
These top processes are, together, allocated over 10 GB of virtual
address space. On a 2 GB physical memory machine, you are almost
certainly going to page. Also firefox with flash has been known to
consume memory without bound. Some Web sites are designed poorly to
It is clear from above that the 2 GB memory on this machine is over-
committed. Add more RAM.
Well, it doesn't seem to be overcommitted for the first four days of running,
with all those apps. Apparently there is a process among these which uses more
and more memory as time passes, without bound, and eventually forces
everything else to swap. So adding more RAM is not the solution, it would just
postpone using of swap for another week maybe.
The problem is that this shouldn't happen in the first place. If I can
successfully use the machine with 2GB of RAM for the first week, why isn't that
state maintained indefinitely? I don't usually add any more load than this, and
the machine seems to handle it without problems initially. But something keeps
eating away RAM, slowly but without bound. :(
As for Firefox with flash, I know, but I need a browser open all the time.
Restarting it doesn't seem to help much. Any suggestions on how to
combat/workaround this issue? That is, short of rebooting every day?
On Friday, November 12, 2010 17:52:12 Patrick Boutilier wrote:
> You have almost 400M free and almost 600M cached. Not sure why so
> much goes into swap. What are the results of the free command after
> running this command?
> swapoff -a && swapon -a
Do not do this. The processes above will *not* fit in 2 GB.
I know. At least they won't fit *now*. They all *do* fit in 2 GB after a fresh
boot or logout/login into X. But give them two weeks, and...
Also the size of cached is almost certainly coming from ktorrent,
judging from the CPU time it has accumulated. The file data it reads
from the network is being held around in anticipation of it being
useful soon. It probably isn't. Cached will be reclaimed when needed
by a process.
So you are saying that ktorrent should not create problems I'm having, right?
If cached mem can be reclaimed, I believe that would happen *before* the
system resorts to using swap? Or am I wrong here?