On Sun, 2 Oct 2016, Camm Maguire wrote: > Greetings! I just wanted to keep you abreast of the latest upload. > I've put in an improvement which I hope will allow better use of the > ram available without running into the fork/exec faults we had seen in > some configurations. This does not address the question of 'how much > memory should we attempt to make use of', but you may find this upload > more robust nonetheless. GCL_MEM_MULTIPLE defaults back to 1.0 from > 0.85 without apparent issue. > > Feedback appreciated.
Hello. I finally tested maxima_5.38.1-2 today. On a machine with 6GB RAM and 4 GB swap, memory usage was about 7500 MB (1500 MB more than the available RAM). On a machine with 3GB RAM and 4 GB swap, memory usage was about 3700 MB (700 MB more than the available RAM). I'm still measuring memory usage with Committed_AS, by taking note of its value during the build and substracting the value before the build starts. In your previous email, you suggest that I don't use Committed_AS to measure memory usage, but something else. I'm not sure what else I could use instead which is better than Committed_AS, and I fear that the more memory I have available, the more memory would maxima use as well, just as it happens with Committed_AS, so are you sure that using something else other than Committed_AS would really fix my problem? Do you have a suggestion about which other parameter in /proc/meminfo would be more suitable than Committed_AS? Maybe this Committed_AS value being higher than the available RAM is "normal and expected", but the way I see it, it seems part of a general problem called "overcommit". The question would be: How much overcommit should we reasonably expect from a package when it's being built? [ I still have to read your previous email in detail, this is just a first reply to tell my experience with maxima_5.38.1-2 ] Thanks.
