On 2007-01-04, Alan McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>> 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:
>>
>> I agree. I'm still using xmms so I can compare. Here are few
>> lines from top (displaying a Mem window - 'Shift+g 3'). Both
>> players were playing same mp3 file.
>>
>>   PID %MEM  VIRT SWAP  RES CODE DATA  SHR nFLT nDRT S  PR  %CPU  COMMAND 
>>   8810 10.9  172m  62m 109m 1620 108m 9104  779    0 S  15  0.0  X 
>>  11170  9.7  308m 210m  97m   80 129m  19m  897    0 S  15  0.0  firefox-bin
>>   7750  2.0  164m 143m  20m  480  41m  11m  117    0 R  15  0.0  audacious
>>   7810  1.8 49940  30m  17m 1524   9m 5016   72    0 S  15  0.0  emacs 
>>   7739  1.1  149m 138m  11m  984  59m 7816   49    0 R  15  0.0  xmms

[I attempted un-wrap the TOP output]

> Ah, a real comparison - I don;t have xmms anymore so couldn't
> do the same in my post. These numbers are interesting,
> although audacious is using more resident memory, xmms is
> using way much more for DATA.
>
> IMHO audacious is using a perfectly reasonable amount of resources, 
> considering what it's being asked to do - decode and play an mp3 file 
> which is probably about 5M or so. 

Playing an mp3 file doesn't actually require much memory:

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND           
 3608 grante    15   0  1936  748  484 S  0.7  0.0   0:00.19 mpg123 

All that memory is for GUI bells and whistles.  The memory
required to play an MP3 file is measured in KB not in MB.

> Incidentally, I just did a similar comparison on my machine between 
> audacious and amarok, and found that amarok consistently uses at least 
> 2.2 times the amount of memory that audacious does. And I've never 
> heard anyone call amarok a resource-hog.

Amarok is a resource-hog.  ;)

>> Although audacious eats twice more resident memory than xmms, I think
>> it's not that bad to call it 'resource hog'. You can see real
>> resource hogs on the first two lines. :-)

Very true, but there is little alternative to X and Firefox.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  RELAX!!... This
                                  at               is gonna be a HEALING
                               visi.com            EXPERIENCE!! Besides,
                                                   I work for DING DONGS!

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Reply via email to