AW: busybox Digest, Vol 145, Issue 1

2017-08-01 Thread LAWO 
Hey,

I see, my BusyBox is too old. Checked with the following versions:

BusyBox v1.27.1 (2017-08-01 15:16:09 CEST) multi-call binary.
Mem: 2963500K used, 1549724K free, 28860K shrd, 229968K buff, 1436756K cached
-> correct

BusyBox v1.22.1 (Ubuntu 1:1.22.0-15ubuntu1) multi-call binary.
Mem: 2964068K used, 1549156K free, 0K shrd, 8955160K buff, 139988491015484K cac
-> not correct

Thank you,
Fynn




--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 07:44:55 +
From: Klaa?en, Fynn (LAWO) <fynn.klaas...@lawo.com>
To: "busybox@busybox.net" <busybox@busybox.net>
Subject: BusyBox top buffered and the cached memory
Message-ID:

<db5pr09mb01019304b334ee316099f1709d...@db5pr09mb0101.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Hey!


I guess, there is a trivial bug when using busybox top:

BusyBox v1.22.1 (Ubuntu 1:1.22.0-15ubuntu1) multi-call binary:

Mem: 3278296K used, 1236784K free, 0K shrd, 35373432K buff, 140001458828604K 
cached

?or?

BusyBox v1.22.1:

Mem: 559252K used, 1413876K free, 0K shrd, 160503248K buff, 160503296K cached



The size oft the buffered and the cached memory seems a bit large and probably 
has the wrong unit.



Best regards,

Fynn

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20170801/934d2006/attachment-0001.html>

--

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:07:23 +0800
From: Kang-Che Sung <explore...@gmail.com>
To: Klaa?en, Fynn (LAWO) <fynn.klaas...@lawo.com>
Cc: "busybox@busybox.net" <busybox@busybox.net>
Subject: Re: BusyBox top buffered and the cached memory
Message-ID:
<caddzafo8vd+w6bi_hnagcaws6jxezqtcrcqug7tsefx4gks...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Klaa?en, Fynn (LAWO) <fynn.klaas...@lawo.com> 
wrote:
>
> I guess, there is a trivial bug when using busybox top:
>
> BusyBox v1.22.1 (Ubuntu 1:1.22.0-15ubuntu1) multi-call binary:
>
> Mem: 3278296K used, 1236784K free, 0K shrd, 35373432K buff, 
> 140001458828604K cached
>
> ?or?
>
> BusyBox v1.22.1:
>
> Mem: 559252K used, 1413876K free, 0K shrd, 160503248K buff, 160503296K 
> cached
>
> The size oft the buffered and the cached memory seems a bit large and 
> probably has the wrong unit.

Can you reproduce it? Did you try the latest development version (git master 
branch)?
I think you can help us more if you can deduce which commit caused the 
regression, or provide some other info that can help us reproduce it.


--

Subject: Digest Footer

___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

--

End of busybox Digest, Vol 145, Issue 1
***
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: BusyBox top buffered and the cached memory

2017-08-01 Thread Kang-Che Sung 
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Klaaßen, Fynn (LAWO)
 wrote:
>
> I guess, there is a trivial bug when using busybox top:
>
> BusyBox v1.22.1 (Ubuntu 1:1.22.0-15ubuntu1) multi-call binary:
>
> Mem: 3278296K used, 1236784K free, 0K shrd, 35373432K buff, 140001458828604K
> cached
>
> …or…
>
> BusyBox v1.22.1:
>
> Mem: 559252K used, 1413876K free, 0K shrd, 160503248K buff, 160503296K
> cached
>
> The size oft the buffered and the cached memory seems a bit large and
> probably has the wrong unit.

Can you reproduce it? Did you try the latest development version (git
master branch)?
I think you can help us more if you can deduce which commit caused the
regression,
or provide some other info that can help us reproduce it.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

BusyBox top buffered and the cached memory

2017-08-01 Thread LAWO 
Hey!


I guess, there is a trivial bug when using busybox top:

BusyBox v1.22.1 (Ubuntu 1:1.22.0-15ubuntu1) multi-call binary:

Mem: 3278296K used, 1236784K free, 0K shrd, 35373432K buff, 140001458828604K 
cached

…or…

BusyBox v1.22.1:

Mem: 559252K used, 1413876K free, 0K shrd, 160503248K buff, 160503296K cached



The size oft the buffered and the cached memory seems a bit large and probably 
has the wrong unit.



Best regards,

Fynn

___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox