On 2007-01-03, Alan McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 January 2007 15:17, Nelson, David (ED, PAR&D) wrote:
>
>> I moved to amarok, I might give audacious a shot.
>>
>> What about noatun for a smallish player? Not sure on it's RAM usage.
>> Also look at Quod Libet or Banshee which are meant to be similar in
>> features to amarok but lighter in terms of resource usage (or so I
>> hear).
>>
>> David
>
> David, this reply isn't directed at you. You just happen to be the most
> recent post and a convenient reply point.
>
> Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious being a
> resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single one of them is
> wrong and this myth really needs to be debunked. Here's why:
>
> Look at the libs it links against:
[...]
> It's those libs that are using the memory, not audacious. Those are
> shared libs, meaning many other apps on the system use them
That's only relevent if there are other apps running that use
those libraries.
Even if you assume they _are_ all used by other apps, audacious
still uses huge amounts of non-shared memory:
Here's my "top" display sorted by memory usage:
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
2743 root 15 0 56604 33m 9.9m S 0.0 2.2 10:59.72 X
20384 grante 15 0 58696 14m 9696 R 0.0 1.0 0:00.54 audacious
2771 grante 15 0 32796 12m 7968 S 0.0 0.8 0:04.56 xfce4-session
2782 grante 15 0 31176 9784 6968 S 0.0 0.6 0:04.66 xfce4-panel
7195 root 18 0 20692 9200 4476 S 0.0 0.6 0:00.41 apache2
2784 grante 15 0 32304 9096 7076 S 0.0 0.6 0:31.95 gkrellm
2773 grante 15 0 30912 8876 5832 S 0.0 0.6 0:03.89 xfce-mcs-manage
2780 grante 18 0 13508 8352 6052 S 0.0 0.5 0:09.53 xfdesktop
7696 roundup 18 0 11400 7268 1464 S 0.0 0.5 0:00.41 roundup-server
2778 grante 15 0 12488 7148 5740 S 0.0 0.5 0:07.98 xftaskbar4
18057 apache 17 0 20692 6672 1924 S 0.0 0.4 0:00.00 apache2
18058 apache 20 0 20692 6672 1924 S 0.0 0.4 0:00.00 apache2
18059 apache 19 0 20692 6672 1924 S 0.0 0.4 0:00.00 apache2
The X server is using 56M of virtual memory with 33M resident
and 10M shared. Audacious is using 58M of with 14M resident
and 10M shared.
> and the total memory they consume is used by all apps that use
> the libs. And, every one of those libs (apart from
> libaudacious) can reasonably be expected to be in use already
> on any desktop machine running X
Nonsense. Audacious is using 44MB of non-shared virtual memory
on my system. 44MB out of 58MB is not shared.
> Here's 'free' before and after I started audacious in another session:
>
> nazgul ~ # free
> total used free shared buffers
> cached
> Mem: 2076984 1844696 232288 0 246056
> 1220848
> -/+ buffers/cache: 377792 1699192
> Swap: 0 0 0
> nazgul ~ # free
> total used free shared buffers
> cached
> Mem: 2076984 1851528 225456 0 246060
> 1222324
> -/+ buffers/cache: 383144 1693840
> Swap: 0 0 0
>
> So starting audacious consumed an extra 6M of memory - that's nowhere
> near the 240M other posters are incorrectly stating it uses.
I've no idea where the number 240M came from, you didn't hear
it from me. It's about 14MB of resident (6MB reduction in
"free" memory) on my system, which makes it the second largest
memory user (second only to the X server).
> So, anyone that says audacious is a resource hog is plain flat
> out wrong
You don't think that 58M of virtual memory usage isn't a
resource hog when the X server only requires 56M and the next
largest program is 32M? Virtual memory _is_ a resource,
though not an expensive one.
> and does not know how the Linux virtual memory system works.
> It is complex and almost impossible to know what is going on
> at any instant in time, but that's no excuse for people being
> wrong by a factor of 500%
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! All this time I've
at been VIEWING a RUSSIAN
visi.com MIDGET SODOMIZE a HOUSECAT!
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
