> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> 19328 isabel.s 15 0 511m 204m 16m S 0.0 27.2 0:02.47 firefox-bin
> [x4]
> 22668 lustosa 15 0 129m 97m 17m S 0.0 13.0 11:50.05 firefox-bin
> [x2]
Hm, on the hand: yes, it _is_ memory hungry. On the other hand: You've
already said: virtual address space. And as I interpret the above
numbers, a lot of things is most probably shared among those processes.
You can find out e.g. by comparing their /proc/<PID>/maps.
Yes, but what caught my eyes was not the virtual address space. The resident portion (i.e., what is really allocated on real memory) is huge for that first instance. 204mb is way too much for a firefox with 4 tabs open.
From top output, isn't the SHR the shared memory between them? It's at 16mb for the first, and 17mb for the second. This is still too little compared to 204mb or 511mb.
You mean that tiny frontend to the OS' functionality? It certainly
doesn't need much memory, no. But remember, other Browsers have to
implement a lot of this stuff themselves and not rely on the
functionality that specific OS and its API offers.
I know, I know... this was just a small rant. I'm not using windows for a long long time.
This seems to be a very bad memory leak somewhere, them problem is I don't know even how to start a bug report on a situation like this.
--
Bruno Lustosa, aka Lofofora | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Administrator/Web Programmer | ICQ: 1406477
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil |
