On 27/03/2018 19:57, IRRITATING SPAMMER wrote: You have chosen an odd nickname.
> Mason83 wrote: > >> There is, as far as I can see, a large memory leak somewhere >> in the TB code: >> >> 2,790,110,536 B (100.0%) -- explicit >> +--2,359,661,280 B (84.57%) -- maildb >> ¦ +----737,522,464 B (26.43%) -- database(news://SNIP >> ¦ +----692,232,288 B (24.81%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +----222,021,472 B (07.96%) -- database(news://SNIP >> ¦ +----180,562,496 B (06.47%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +----138,690,496 B (04.97%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +----121,302,864 B (04.35%) -- database(snews://SNIP >> ¦ +-----96,929,744 B (03.47%) -- database(snews://SNIP >> ¦ +-----48,629,440 B (01.74%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +-----42,458,432 B (01.52%) -- database(snews://SNIP >> ¦ +-----24,473,008 B (00.88%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +-----21,606,800 B (00.77%) -- database(news://SNIP >> ¦ +-----10,834,000 B (00.39%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +------5,589,824 B (00.20%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +------4,862,032 B (00.17%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +------3,337,296 B (00.12%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +------2,627,888 B (00.09%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +------1,382,832 B (00.05%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +--------786,896 B (00.03%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +--------786,128 B (00.03%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +--------674,128 B (00.02%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +--------503,184 B (00.02%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +--------481,776 B (00.02%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +--------341,904 B (00.01%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +--------240,256 B (00.01%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +--------166,416 B (00.01%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +--------164,352 B (00.01%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +--------143,680 B (00.01%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +--------103,104 B (00.00%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> ¦ +--------103,104 B (00.00%) -- database(mailbox://SNIP >> ¦ +--------102,976 B (00.00%) -- database(imap://SNIP >> >> >> 737 MB of RAM to store the index of a single newsgroup? >> And 692 MB for my main inbox? Something looks fishy there. >> >> >> 76 B ── gfx-surface-image >> 768 B ── gfx-surface-xlib >> 0 B ── gfx-textures >> 0 B ── gfx-textures-peak >> 0 B ── gfx-tiles-waste >> 0 ── ghost-windows >> 2,112,485,288 B ── heap-allocated >> 1,048,576 B ── heap-chunksize >> 2,320,498,688 B ── heap-mapped >> 0 ── host-object-urls >> 24,929,212 B ── imagelib-surface-cache-estimated-locked >> 24,930,812 B ── imagelib-surface-cache-estimated-total >> 0 ── imagelib-surface-cache-overflow-count >> 5,087,232 B ── js-main-runtime-temporary-peak >> 25,966 ── page-faults-hard >> 386,639,447 ── page-faults-soft >> 2,847,887,360 B ── resident >> 3,155,869,696 B ── resident-peak >> 2,574,921,728 B ── resident-unique >> 0 B ── system-heap-allocated >> 5,839,982,592 B ── vsize >> >> >> 5.8 GB of VM for a few tabs open sounds completely unreasonable. >> >> Is there any work around other than quitting/restarting SM? > > My "explicit" is 522.23 MB > maildb is 121.81 MB > window-objects 97.85 MB > heap-unclassified 95.55 MB > js-non-window 65.23 MB > > Both of us are using Linux. How did you figure out this was a Linux box? > Does it help a bit if you close and reopen the News/Mail part of Seamonkey? I will try. (AFAIR, it doesn't have any impact.) > I also don't understand why your figures are in Bytes and mine in MB. I was using 2.49.2 while you seem to be using 2.46 Maybe they changed the reporting format between these versions? Wait... I get "MB" in the Windows version, which is 32-bit while the Linux version is 64-bit. Maybe it takes different code paths... Also note that the "explicit" figure seems to be using a 32-bit variable, and wraps around at 4 GiB. Regards. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
