Re: Increased RAM usage with nm-applet 0.8.0 to 0.8.1

[Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Jeff Hoogland  wrote:
> So - I've discovered that the increase in memory usage is coming from an
> update to ifupdown - not network manager.
>
> Is that related to this list or should I report the issue elsewhere?

Seems rather unlikely that anything could change in ifupdown that
would affect network-manager like this, given that ifupdown is a
completely separate process. If you've found this on Ubuntu, please
report it as a bug on Launchpad. You can do this easily with the
'ubuntu-bug ifupdown' command. If on Debian, you should be able to use
the 'reportbug' command.

Regards

Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre 
Freenode: cyphermox, Jabber: mathieu...@gmail.com
4096R/EE018C93 1967 8F7D 03A1 8F38 732E  FF82 C126 33E1 EE01 8C93
___
networkmanager-list mailing list
networkmanager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Re: Increased RAM usage with nm-applet 0.8.0 to 0.8.1

[Jeff Hoogland]

So - I've discovered that the increase in memory usage is coming from an
update to ifupdown - not network manager.

Is that related to this list or should I report the issue elsewhere?

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Dan Williams  wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 23:09 +0200, Uwe Geuder wrote:
> > On 12 December 2011 09:29, Jeff Hoogland  wrote:
> >
> > > Attached are the two outputs you requested, digging through them now
> to see
> > > if I can pinpoint the issue.
> > >
> >
> > Did you find out anything?
> >
> > I converted the outputs to csv, loaded them into an OpenOffice
> > spreadsheet, summed up each category of memory and compared your 2
> > versions.  The differences are really marginal, depending on the memory
> > category sometimes in favor of the old and sometimes in favor of the new
> > version. In terms of resident memory, which should be the most important
> > measure (no swapping has occured) the new version is even 792 KiB (~ 7 %)
> > smaller than the old one.
>
> Thanks for looking at that; I was going to suggest something like this.
> As you've pointed out, RSS is the value that really matters.  VSS
> doesn't matter at all.  So any large (>25%) increases in RSS size
> between the dumps in any one library are interesting.  But also that
> would indicate increased usage *in that library*, not necessarily in
> nm-applet.  Now if you haven't changed any other packages/libraries on
> your system, but you've just changed nm-applet from 0.8.0 -> 0.8.1, then
> it may be that nm-applet is now using those libraries in a different way
> that results in a difference in memory usage.  ie, it's actually not
> very straightforward to figure out this problem.  Anyway, if we can
> figure out what might account for the change (if there is a large
> change) then we can look at what might be causing it.  But if, as Uwe
> says, the RSS actually *decreases* in 0.8.1 then we've already won? :)
>
> Dan
>
> > Unless my conversion script really screwed up something and by accident
> > the bug just happened to level out your obvserved 110 MiB difference
> > such difference does not exist.
> >
> > If anybody wants my script and my spreadsheets to double check I can send
> > them by personal mail. I don't want the flood the mailing list with big
> > attachments, which are probably not of big interest for most
> > readers. (There are also other tools to read smaps files on the net, I
> > have never tried them.)
> >
> > Memory consumption in Linux is a tricky thing. There are many different
> > categories to measure (that's why smaps was added some time ago to show
> > them all or at least many of them). There is no single correct number.
> > If the tool you used to compute the 110 MiB delta shows only a single
> > number, are you sure the way the number is calculated has not changed
> > between your old and your new system? I assume you used the same tool in
> > the old and the new system, otherwise it's even more likely that you
> > ended up comparing apples and oranges.
> >
> > 110 MB difference looks huge by any measure. According to to my results
> > the mapped address space of the new version is "only" around 46 MiB. I
> don't
> > think any reasonable measure can be bigger than the mapped space. (The
> > old one is around 45 MiB, the difference 712 KiB)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Uwe
> > ___
> > networkmanager-list mailing list
> > networkmanager-list@gnome.org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
>
>
> ___
> networkmanager-list mailing list
> networkmanager-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
>



-- 
~Jeff Hoogland 
Thoughts on Technology , Tech Blog
Bodhi Linux , Enlightenment for your Desktop
___
networkmanager-list mailing list
networkmanager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Re: Increased RAM usage with nm-applet 0.8.0 to 0.8.1

[Dan Williams]

On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 23:09 +0200, Uwe Geuder wrote:
> On 12 December 2011 09:29, Jeff Hoogland  wrote:
> 
> > Attached are the two outputs you requested, digging through them now to see
> > if I can pinpoint the issue.
> >
> 
> Did you find out anything? 
> 
> I converted the outputs to csv, loaded them into an OpenOffice
> spreadsheet, summed up each category of memory and compared your 2
> versions.  The differences are really marginal, depending on the memory
> category sometimes in favor of the old and sometimes in favor of the new
> version. In terms of resident memory, which should be the most important
> measure (no swapping has occured) the new version is even 792 KiB (~ 7 %)
> smaller than the old one.

Thanks for looking at that; I was going to suggest something like this.
As you've pointed out, RSS is the value that really matters.  VSS
doesn't matter at all.  So any large (>25%) increases in RSS size
between the dumps in any one library are interesting.  But also that
would indicate increased usage *in that library*, not necessarily in
nm-applet.  Now if you haven't changed any other packages/libraries on
your system, but you've just changed nm-applet from 0.8.0 -> 0.8.1, then
it may be that nm-applet is now using those libraries in a different way
that results in a difference in memory usage.  ie, it's actually not
very straightforward to figure out this problem.  Anyway, if we can
figure out what might account for the change (if there is a large
change) then we can look at what might be causing it.  But if, as Uwe
says, the RSS actually *decreases* in 0.8.1 then we've already won? :)

Dan

> Unless my conversion script really screwed up something and by accident
> the bug just happened to level out your obvserved 110 MiB difference 
> such difference does not exist.
> 
> If anybody wants my script and my spreadsheets to double check I can send 
> them by personal mail. I don't want the flood the mailing list with big
> attachments, which are probably not of big interest for most
> readers. (There are also other tools to read smaps files on the net, I
> have never tried them.)
> 
> Memory consumption in Linux is a tricky thing. There are many different
> categories to measure (that's why smaps was added some time ago to show
> them all or at least many of them). There is no single correct number.
> If the tool you used to compute the 110 MiB delta shows only a single
> number, are you sure the way the number is calculated has not changed
> between your old and your new system? I assume you used the same tool in
> the old and the new system, otherwise it's even more likely that you
> ended up comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> 110 MB difference looks huge by any measure. According to to my results
> the mapped address space of the new version is "only" around 46 MiB. I don't
> think any reasonable measure can be bigger than the mapped space. (The
> old one is around 45 MiB, the difference 712 KiB)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Uwe
> ___
> networkmanager-list mailing list
> networkmanager-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list


___
networkmanager-list mailing list
networkmanager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Re: Increased RAM usage with nm-applet 0.8.0 to 0.8.1

[Jeff Hoogland]

Yea I didn't notice anything either, but htop conky and the gnome system
monitor all report increased ram usage with this updated.

Another oddity is that the ttys on the systems that are upgraded also stop
working. Guess I'll have to be sticking to the older network manager as it
has far few issues than this one does >.<

Tried 0.9.0 a month back or so and had the same two issues with it as well
(increased memory usage an TTYs breaking).

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Uwe Geuder <
networkmanagerlist-ugeu...@snkmail.com> wrote:

> On 12 December 2011 09:29, Jeff Hoogland  wrote:
>
> > Attached are the two outputs you requested, digging through them now to
> see
> > if I can pinpoint the issue.
> >
>
> Did you find out anything?
>
> I converted the outputs to csv, loaded them into an OpenOffice
> spreadsheet, summed up each category of memory and compared your 2
> versions.  The differences are really marginal, depending on the memory
> category sometimes in favor of the old and sometimes in favor of the new
> version. In terms of resident memory, which should be the most important
> measure (no swapping has occured) the new version is even 792 KiB (~ 7 %)
> smaller than the old one.
>
> Unless my conversion script really screwed up something and by accident
> the bug just happened to level out your obvserved 110 MiB difference
> such difference does not exist.
>
> If anybody wants my script and my spreadsheets to double check I can send
> them by personal mail. I don't want the flood the mailing list with big
> attachments, which are probably not of big interest for most
> readers. (There are also other tools to read smaps files on the net, I
> have never tried them.)
>
> Memory consumption in Linux is a tricky thing. There are many different
> categories to measure (that's why smaps was added some time ago to show
> them all or at least many of them). There is no single correct number.
> If the tool you used to compute the 110 MiB delta shows only a single
> number, are you sure the way the number is calculated has not changed
> between your old and your new system? I assume you used the same tool in
> the old and the new system, otherwise it's even more likely that you
> ended up comparing apples and oranges.
>
> 110 MB difference looks huge by any measure. According to to my results
> the mapped address space of the new version is "only" around 46 MiB. I
> don't
> think any reasonable measure can be bigger than the mapped space. (The
> old one is around 45 MiB, the difference 712 KiB)
>
> Regards,
>
> Uwe
> ___
> networkmanager-list mailing list
> networkmanager-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
>



-- 
~Jeff Hoogland 
Thoughts on Technology , Tech Blog
Bodhi Linux , Enlightenment for your Desktop
___
networkmanager-list mailing list
networkmanager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Re: Increased RAM usage with nm-applet 0.8.0 to 0.8.1

[Uwe Geuder]

On 12 December 2011 09:29, Jeff Hoogland  wrote:

> Attached are the two outputs you requested, digging through them now to see
> if I can pinpoint the issue.
>

Did you find out anything? 

I converted the outputs to csv, loaded them into an OpenOffice
spreadsheet, summed up each category of memory and compared your 2
versions.  The differences are really marginal, depending on the memory
category sometimes in favor of the old and sometimes in favor of the new
version. In terms of resident memory, which should be the most important
measure (no swapping has occured) the new version is even 792 KiB (~ 7 %)
smaller than the old one.

Unless my conversion script really screwed up something and by accident
the bug just happened to level out your obvserved 110 MiB difference 
such difference does not exist.

If anybody wants my script and my spreadsheets to double check I can send 
them by personal mail. I don't want the flood the mailing list with big
attachments, which are probably not of big interest for most
readers. (There are also other tools to read smaps files on the net, I
have never tried them.)

Memory consumption in Linux is a tricky thing. There are many different
categories to measure (that's why smaps was added some time ago to show
them all or at least many of them). There is no single correct number.
If the tool you used to compute the 110 MiB delta shows only a single
number, are you sure the way the number is calculated has not changed
between your old and your new system? I assume you used the same tool in
the old and the new system, otherwise it's even more likely that you
ended up comparing apples and oranges.

110 MB difference looks huge by any measure. According to to my results
the mapped address space of the new version is "only" around 46 MiB. I don't
think any reasonable measure can be bigger than the mapped space. (The
old one is around 45 MiB, the difference 712 KiB)

Regards,

Uwe
___
networkmanager-list mailing list
networkmanager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Re: Increased RAM usage with nm-applet 0.8.0 to 0.8.1

[Jeff Hoogland]

Output you asked for:

0.8.1 - http://pastebin.com/Rfx1zYi8
0.8.0 - http://pastebin.com/HY5kreLg

Digging through it myself - let me know if you see something obvious there.

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Jeff Hoogland wrote:

> Attached are the two outputs you requested, digging through them now to
> see if I can pinpoint the issue.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Uwe Geuder <
> networkmanagerlist-ugeu...@snkmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 12 December 2011 06:33, Jeff Hoogland 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > but the issue I am having is that this newer version is using nearly
>> > 110megs more RAM than version 0.8.0 does - any ideas why this might
>> > be?
>>
>> Technical progress...
>>
>> Seriously, have you checked where the difference comes from?
>>
>> Can you run the command
>>
>> cat /proc/$(pgrep nm-applet)/smaps
>>
>> on both your old and your new system and post the results here?
>>
>> I'm not an nm-applet hacker, but that's how would I start to look at it.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Uwe
>> ___
>> networkmanager-list mailing list
>> networkmanager-list@gnome.org
>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ~Jeff Hoogland 
> Thoughts on Technology , Tech Blog
> Bodhi Linux , Enlightenment for your Desktop
>
>


-- 
~Jeff Hoogland 
Thoughts on Technology , Tech Blog
Bodhi Linux , Enlightenment for your Desktop
___
networkmanager-list mailing list
networkmanager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Re: Increased RAM usage with nm-applet 0.8.0 to 0.8.1

[Uwe Geuder]

On 12 December 2011 06:33, Jeff Hoogland  
wrote:

> but the issue I am having is that this newer version is using nearly
> 110megs more RAM than version 0.8.0 does - any ideas why this might
> be?

Technical progress...

Seriously, have you checked where the difference comes from?

Can you run the command

cat /proc/$(pgrep nm-applet)/smaps

on both your old and your new system and post the results here?

I'm not an nm-applet hacker, but that's how would I start to look at it.

Regards,

Uwe
___
networkmanager-list mailing list
networkmanager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Increased RAM usage with nm-applet 0.8.0 to 0.8.1

[Jeff Hoogland]

nm-applet/network manager are great tools and I use them to manage
connections in the Bodhi Linux distribution I manage.

I am currently looking to upgrade our version from the 0.8.0 version Ubuntu
10.04 uses by default to a newer version to resolve the bugs that have been
addressed. I've successfully built network manager 0.8.1 from the Debian
stable sources and they work, but the issue I am having is that this newer
version is using nearly 110megs more RAM than version 0.8.0 does - any
ideas why this might be?

Thanks!
-- 
~Jeff Hoogland 
Thoughts on Technology , Tech Blog
Bodhi Linux , Enlightenment for your Desktop
___
networkmanager-list mailing list
networkmanager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list