Re: [squid-users] mallinfo() vs. sbrk()
On sön, 2008-11-09 at 14:06 -0800, Mark Nottingham wrote: > What about > > Memory accounted for: > Total accounted: 2039507 KB > > This seems to be the only one that's not wrapped around to negative > above 2G on Linux... both mallinfo and sbrk are. total accounted for works, but does not include all memory allocations. Regards Henrik signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [squid-users] mallinfo() vs. sbrk()
What about Memory accounted for: Total accounted: 2039507 KB This seems to be the only one that's not wrapped around to negative above 2G on Linux... both mallinfo and sbrk are. Cheers, On 07/11/2008, at 12:38 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: On fre, 2008-11-07 at 10:36 -0800, Mark Nottingham wrote: thx. When mallinfo fails, how does it appear in cachemgr -- i.e., is there any way to reliably detect it just by examining the output? numbers wrap over and become negative, then 0 and positive again. Cycle repeats each 4 GB. (32-bit signed counters counting bytes) regards Henrik -- Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [squid-users] mallinfo() vs. sbrk()
On fre, 2008-11-07 at 10:36 -0800, Mark Nottingham wrote: > thx. > > When mallinfo fails, how does it appear in cachemgr -- i.e., is there > any way to reliably detect it just by examining the output? numbers wrap over and become negative, then 0 and positive again. Cycle repeats each 4 GB. (32-bit signed counters counting bytes) regards Henrik
Re: [squid-users] mallinfo() vs. sbrk()
thx. When mallinfo fails, how does it appear in cachemgr -- i.e., is there any way to reliably detect it just by examining the output? Cheers, On 06/11/2008, at 7:03 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: On tor, 2008-11-06 at 13:17 -0800, Mark Nottingham wrote: I remember reading somewhere (can't forget where, and I may be incorrect) that when available, sbrk is a more reliable indication of memory use for squid than mallinfo(). mallinfo is more reliabe than sbrk when it works... but at least Linux mallinfo fails when the process grows above 2GB in size.. mallinfo includes all memory allocated by the memory allocator (malloc and friends). sbrk includes the size of the data segment, where most memory allocations go, but not all. Large allocations is handled by malloc outside of the data segment. Regards Henrik -- Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [squid-users] mallinfo() vs. sbrk()
On tor, 2008-11-06 at 13:17 -0800, Mark Nottingham wrote: > I remember reading somewhere (can't forget where, and I may be > incorrect) that when available, sbrk is a more reliable indication of > memory use for squid than mallinfo(). mallinfo is more reliabe than sbrk when it works... but at least Linux mallinfo fails when the process grows above 2GB in size.. mallinfo includes all memory allocated by the memory allocator (malloc and friends). sbrk includes the size of the data segment, where most memory allocations go, but not all. Large allocations is handled by malloc outside of the data segment. Regards Henrik signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[squid-users] mallinfo() vs. sbrk()
I remember reading somewhere (can't forget where, and I may be incorrect) that when available, sbrk is a more reliable indication of memory use for squid than mallinfo(). However, I'm seeing this on a box; Process Data Segment Size via sbrk(): 1040844 KB Maximum Resident Size: 0 KB Page faults with physical i/o: 0 Memory usage for squid via mallinfo(): Total space in arena: 1621452 KB Ordinary blocks: 1620888 KB 8820 blks Small blocks: 0 KB 0 blks Holding blocks: 20928 KB 4 blks Free Small blocks: 0 KB Free Ordinary blocks: 563 KB Total in use: 1641816 KB 100% Total free: 563 KB 0% Total size:1642380 KB Memory accounted for: Total accounted: 1565651 KB As you can see, sbrk() is considerably less than total size via mallinfo(). Is this unusual? Any thoughts about which is better, if both are available? Thanks, -- Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
