It would not be so hard to add a couple of registry key settings to allow fine tuning of cache parameters in the current FreeRDP sources. A subset of the Windows registry API is implemented in WinPR has is already used in parts like libfreerdp-core/settings.c.
*From:* Gallauner Roman <roman.gallau...@akhwien.at> *Sent:* August 28, 2012 4:45 PM *To:* Jay Sorg <jay.s...@gmail.com> *CC:* freerdp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net *Subject:* Re: [Freerdp-devel] Memory consumption 0.8.2 vs. 1.0.1 (current version from git) Saw that the virtual size of the process growed steadily when the screen content changes in the session - no growth when nothing changes, so I thought of some sort of cache and found libfreerdp/cache/bitmap.c. Changed the obivious lines in bitmap_cache_new() to bitmap_cache->maxCells = 0; settings->bitmapCacheV2NumCells = 0; and whoops xfreerdp starts with about 30 MB and does not grow anymore and therefore no more freezing/crashing thin client (at least those with 96 MB RAM, those with only 64 still die with 2 concurrent sessions). Maybe someone with more insight in the configuration logic of freerdp could add a command line switch which enables/disables the bitmap cache? Cheers Roman -----Original Message----- From: Gallauner Roman Sent: Dienstag, 28. August 2012 19:46 To: 'Jay Sorg' Cc: freerdp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Freerdp-devel] Memory consumption 0.8.2 vs. 1.0.1 (current version from git) The case is quite clear for us: If our users cannot live with the restrictions of 0.8.2 we have to replace over 900 thin clients.... Roman -----Original Message----- From: Jay Sorg [mailto:jay.s...@gmail.com] Sent: Dienstag, 28. August 2012 19:29 To: Gallauner Roman Cc: freerdp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Freerdp-devel] Memory consumption 0.8.2 vs. 1.0.1 (current version from git) > We use some very memory constrained linux thin clients (down to 64 MB > RAM) and we noticed that 0.8.2 used about 14 MB (virtual size) and > 1.0.1 (current version from git) goes up to about 76 MB - of course > the poor little boxes freeze or crash or show other strange behavior > then :-D Is this increase in memory consumption normal and to be > expected because of all this wonderful features you squeezed in in the > last few months or could this be some kind of memory leak? Thanks Roman, I'm a FreeRDP developer and I agree with you 100%. We need to still run on 64 MB and even less. I'm met with resistance from other developers on this topic. Help me make a case for running FreeRDP on low memory devices. Do you know that a RemoteFX encoder, bulk compressor, NSCodec encoder, etc are all building and talking up memory on tiny arm devices when that code will never run!! If fact, it should be the other way around, developers should have to make a case for why these things are build in with no way to turn them off. Jay ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Freerdp-devel mailing list Freerdp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freerdp-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Freerdp-devel mailing list Freerdp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freerdp-devel
