how to get statistics about memory usage ?

[Christophe Lohr]

Hi,

Inside a program, I need to get some statistics about memory usage.
I actually need figures given by the "ps -o vsr,rss" command.

For the moment, I make a popen("ps...") followed of a scanf on what it
displays. It is a little complicated, and that distorts measurements.
Is there a better way?

I have tried "getrusage( )". However values returned are not really
relevant for my needs.

I also looked at "mallinfo() ", without success.
First, I do not know what is that a "block" (which size ?). Then, that does
not count the stack size and the code size, just the malloc.
(By the way, it's more or less a C++ code. So, are the "new" counted in
mallinfo() ?)

Then, how can my program know its "resident set size" and especially its
"virtual memory size"?

Thanks.
Christophe

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-12-02, Joe Estock <je*****@NOSPAM nutextonline.co m> wrote:

Kenny McCormack wrote:
[usual crap]

You're still alive Kenny? I thought someone would have killfiled you by now.

You know - i don't think you understand how a "killfile" works. It
blocks him from being seen by the person who sets the killfile entry,
unless someone else [you] responds to him. If you want him gone, _you_
have to "killfile" him [i'm not sure how thunderbird 1.0.9 does it, but
surely there's some way to ignore or mark-as-read based on from address]

[Keith Thompson]

"Mark B" <so***@localbar .com> writes:

"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote in message
news:dk******** ****@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...

Kenny McCormack wrote:

In article <ln************ @nuthaus.mib.or g>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> wrote:
"David Resnick" <ln********@gma il.com> writes:
[...]
> This is all system specific, so OT in comp.lang.c. From what you are
> saying,
> I believe comp.unix.progr ammer would be a good place for you to get
> help. <OT> On Linux, May find what you want in /proc file system, you
> could ask about that in cup </OT>
<STILL_OT>
/proc is Linux-specific, though some other Unix-like systems may
provide something similar.
</STILL_OT>

That should have been:

<WRONG>
/proc is Linux-specific, though some other Unix-like systems may
provide something similar.
</WRONG>

No, what Keith said is correct.

Actually, what Keith said is most definately NOT correct.

Solaris has /proc, as do (I believe) over Unix flavors.

Are you claiming that these Unix flavours are not like Unix?

No, his claim is that: /proc is NOT linux specific... and he is right.
Many systems (which predate Linux) also use(d) a /proc file system.

Sigh.

My wording was slightly sloppy. The existence of /proc is not
Linux-specific. The details of the interface of /proc *are*, as far
as I know, Linux-specific (and/or specific to the system in question).
My intent was merely to suggest that cup (comp.unix.prog rammer) is not
the best place to discuss /proc, since it covers systems with widely
varying /proc interfaces (or none at all, at least for some older
systems). The details of /proc would be topical in one of the
comp.os.linux.* groups, or in comp.unix.solar is, or comp.unix.aix, or
whatever.

This is tangentially topical here only insofar as we're trying to
determine the best newsgroup to which to redirect the original poster
(who is probably long gone by now).

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[John Devereux]

Joe Estock <je*****@NOSPAM nutextonline.co m> writes:

Kenny McCormack wrote:
[usual crap]

You're still alive Kenny? I thought someone would have killfiled you by now.

Oh no! They killed Kenny!

--

John Devereux

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <vY2kf.595437$_ o.124251@attbi_ s71>,
Joe Estock <je*****@NOSPAM nutextonline.co m> wrote:

Kenny McCormack wrote:
[usual crap]

You're still alive Kenny? I thought someone would have killfiled you by now.

Joe

Like a bad penny...

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:17:37 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:

Solaris has /proc, as do (I believe) over Unix flavors.

Howevr what solaris puts in /proc is rather different.
Are you claiming that these Unix flavours are not like Unix?

I think keith's point was that the contents of /proc are
operating-system specific.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt >

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <or************ *************** *****@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@s pamcop.net> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:17:37 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:

Solaris has /proc, as do (I believe) over Unix flavors.

Howevr what solaris puts in /proc is rather different.

Are you claiming that these Unix flavours are not like Unix?

I think keith's point was that the contents of /proc are
operating-system specific.

Which is the same as saying that trees are North-America-specific, because
our trees are different from the trees that grow in other parts of the
world.

Note that, ordinarily, I'd cut him some slack - it's late, his phrasing was
inexact - but this is clc where what we do is stomp on people for any
possible error, no matter how microscopic. That's the game we play here,
and I like it!

[Chris McDonald]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@s pamcop.net> writes:

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:17:37 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:

Solaris has /proc, as do (I believe) over Unix flavors.

Howevr what solaris puts in /proc is rather different. Are you claiming that these Unix flavours are not like Unix?

I think keith's point was that the contents of /proc are
operating-system specific.

It's very interesting to note that the first reply to this topic was
someone quickly highlighting how off-topic the topic was. The OP has
since moved on to comp.unix.progr ammer, and received a helpful reply.

Since then, we've seen about a dozen articles, some from old hands,
continuing a debate about exactly what is, and what is not, a
Linux-specific feature.

Just an observation....

--
Chris.

[pete]

Chris McDonald wrote:

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@s pamcop.net> writes:

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:17:37 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:

Solaris has /proc, as do (I believe) over Unix flavors.

Howevr what solaris puts in /proc is rather different.

Are you claiming that these Unix flavours are not like Unix?

I think keith's point was that the contents of /proc are
operating-system specific.

It's very interesting to note that the first reply to this topic was
someone quickly highlighting how off-topic the topic was. The OP has
since moved on to comp.unix.progr ammer, and received a helpful reply.

Since then, we've seen about a dozen articles, some from old hands,
continuing a debate about exactly what is, and what is not, a
Linux-specific feature.

Just an observation....

I was thinking the same thing.

"The off topic argument"

--
pete

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <dm**********@e nyo.uwa.edu.au> ,
Chris McDonald <ch***@csse.uwa .edu.au> wrote:

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@s pamcop.net> writes:

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:17:37 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:

Solaris has /proc, as do (I believe) over Unix flavors.

Howevr what solaris puts in /proc is rather different.

Are you claiming that these Unix flavours are not like Unix?

I think keith's point was that the contents of /proc are
operating-system specific.

It's very interesting to note that the first reply to this topic was
someone quickly highlighting how off-topic the topic was. The OP has
since moved on to comp.unix.progr ammer, and received a helpful reply.

Since then, we've seen about a dozen articles, some from old hands,
continuing a debate about exactly what is, and what is not, a
Linux-specific feature.

It's what we do. We're not allowed to talk about anything substantive, so
this is what we do.
Just an observation....

And a good one.

[Joe Estock]

Jordan Abel wrote:

On 2005-12-02, Joe Estock <je*****@NOSPAM nutextonline.co m> wrote:

Kenny McCormack wrote:
[usual crap]

You're still alive Kenny? I thought someone would have killfiled you by now.

You know - i don't think you understand how a "killfile" works. It
blocks him from being seen by the person who sets the killfile entry,
unless someone else [you] responds to him. If you want him gone, _you_
have to "killfile" him [i'm not sure how thunderbird 1.0.9 does it, but
surely there's some way to ignore or mark-as-read based on from address]

Thanks for the clarification Jordan. I was under the presumption that a
killfile was controlled server side not client side.

Joe