On Wednesday 03 January 2007 23:43, Robert Cernansky wrote: > On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:05:18 +0200 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
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. 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. I think the problem here is that very few folk have any comprehension at all what that VIRT column means and how the kernel has been coded to deal with virtual memory and COW. For an in-depth technical handling of the subject, I recommend the book "Understanding the Linux Virtual memory Manager" as part of the Bruce Perens Open Source Series > > 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. :-) Hehe, I see you have a firefox that's probably a) been up for several days and b) is very aggressively caching everything it can lay it's hands on > Btw, how do you guys get so little virtual memory? :-O Dunno :-) Right now it's not so lean anymore, X has caused 173M virtual memory to be used, most of it kde-libs related stuff. The *real* resource hog on this machine strangely enough is kontact - memory usage can jump 60M when I start it up. It's probably because it needs most of konqueror loaded to render this other idiotic thing that corporate users seem to love - I believe it's called "HTML mail".... alan -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
