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

[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]

Forgot to add this bit of information to my previous post, but FWIW in
Thunderbird you add what's called a "Message Filter". Tools->Message
Filters->New.

[Richard Heathfield]

Kenny McCormack said:

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

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.
That shows that we did the right thing.

"Excuse me, I'd like to buy a stamp."
"Ah, we're a greengrocer; we don't sell stamps here. Lettuce, yes, letters,
no. You want the post office. It's just over the road. See the sign?"
"Oh! Thank you very much..."

The OP gets his stamp much quicker that way. And it'll be a good stamp, not
just a potato-cut.
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.

Wrong on several counts:

1) there's loads of substantive stuff to discuss here; the fact that you
don't realise that it's substantive is irrelevant;
2) you can talk about whatever you like, and we ask only that you find a
newsgroup where that subject is topical;
3) whilst we do occasionally have discussions emanating from off-topic
questions, that isn't really "what we do" - what we do is C, and some of
the folks here are extremely good at it.

You appear to delight in parading your ignorance of these facts, so that all
the world may know that you cannot grasp a simple classification concept
such as topicality.

You also seem to think that the opinions you express on comp.lang.c are
worth as much as anyone else's. Well, they will be, when (and only when)
you demonstrate that your knowledge of C is sufficiently encyclopaedic that
it becomes a good use of people's time to put up with your drivel for the
sake of your expertise. Until then, you will always remain mere background
noise.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 01:33:08 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Chris
McDonald <ch***@csse.uwa .edu.au> wrote:

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.

You're right, we shold probably have shut up. Occasionally however,
misinformation supplied here is sufficiently annoying or misleading to
cause responses even from those who should know better.
--
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 <dm**********@n wrdmz02.dmz.ncs .ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invali d.invalid> wrote:
(the usual crap)
....

You also seem to think that the opinions you express on comp.lang.c are
worth as much as anyone else's. Well, they will be, when (and only when)
you demonstrate that your knowledge of C is sufficiently encyclopaedic that
it becomes a good use of people's time to put up with your drivel for the
sake of your expertise.
I believe the relevant phrase here is: PKB
Until then, you will always remain mere background noise.

Blah, blah, blah.

[Joe Estock]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Kenny McCormack said:

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

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.

That shows that we did the right thing.

"Excuse me, I'd like to buy a stamp."
"Ah, we're a greengrocer; we don't sell stamps here. Lettuce, yes, letters,
no. You want the post office. It's just over the road. See the sign?"
"Oh! Thank you very much..."

The OP gets his stamp much quicker that way. And it'll be a good stamp, not
just a potato-cut.
I agree completely. Why would we tell someone to use their hand to drive
in a nail when we can point them to a hammer instead. I agree that some
replys are a bit cocky in this regard, however in my experience it does
nothing more than further encourage the OP to seek help in another (more
appropriate) newsgroup as opposed to this one.

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.

Wrong on several counts:

1) there's loads of substantive stuff to discuss here; the fact that you
don't realise that it's substantive is irrelevant;
2) you can talk about whatever you like, and we ask only that you find a
newsgroup where that subject is topical;
3) whilst we do occasionally have discussions emanating from off-topic
questions, that isn't really "what we do" - what we do is C, and some of
the folks here are extremely good at it.

In addition to the above, we sometimes talk about popular extensions to
the c langauge that are resident in nearly all implementations of the
standard c library and that in itself is still on topic IMHO so long as
it's clear that it's not an official part of the standard. This
distinction is very important because newcomers to the group may think
that the extension we are discussing is part of the actual c standard
and then we grow a new breed of misguided programmers. To further prove
this point, I used to work with a few guys who thought that MFC
(Microsoft Foundation Classes) were in fact part of the standard c
library as outlined by the C89 standard and they would argue with me
over it for hours at a time if I let them.

You appear to delight in parading your ignorance of these facts, so that all
the world may know that you cannot grasp a simple classification concept
such as topicality.
I've noticed this more and more over the past few weeks. Kenny seems to
like disrupting posts in order to delight himself (or so it would seem
since none of the regulars seem to pay him any mind). He always whines
and complains that we're strictly on topic here and that is not always
the case. We don't always adhere to the rules when replying to a message
(my reply being case and point), however nobody minds. Even when a post
does not adhere to the rules here, we prefix the message with the
characters [OT] which allows others to filter out the junk from the juice.

You also seem to think that the opinions you express on comp.lang.c are
worth as much as anyone else's. Well, they will be, when (and only when)
you demonstrate that your knowledge of C is sufficiently encyclopaedic that
it becomes a good use of people's time to put up with your drivel for the
sake of your expertise. Until then, you will always remain mere background
noise.

Well put and I completely agree. Perhaps Kenny will one day grow up and
learn that this newsgroup is not a battleground for showing off your
leet typing skills, rather it is an invaluable tool to those of us who
actually know c and need a little help now and again. Of course I
personaly feel that by the time this happens earth will no longer be
populated with c programmers as we will all have established life on
another planet that is not infested with trolls such as Kenny. Again,
that's just my personal view on things.

That's just my two cents.

Joe

[Joe Estock]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

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

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.

That shows that we did the right thing.

"Excuse me, I'd like to buy a stamp."
"Ah, we're a greengrocer; we don't sell stamps here. Lettuce, yes, letters, no. You want the post office. It's just over the road. See the sign?" "Oh! Thank you very much..."

The OP gets his stamp much quicker that way. And it'll be a good stamp, not just a potato-cut.
I agree completely. Why would we tell someone to use their hand to
drive
in a nail when we can point them to a hammer instead. I agree that
some
replys are a bit cocky in this regard, however in my experience it
does
nothing more than further encourage the OP to seek help in another
(more
appropriate) newsgroup as opposed to this one.


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.
Wrong on several counts:

1) there's loads of substantive stuff to discuss here; the fact that you don't realise that it's substantive is irrelevant;
2) you can talk about whatever you like, and we ask only that you find a newsgroup where that subject is topical;
3) whilst we do occasionally have discussions emanating from off-topic questions, that isn't really "what we do" - what we do is C, and some of the folks here are extremely good at it.
In addition to the above, we sometimes talk about popular extensions
to
the c langauge that are resident in nearly all implementations of the
standard c library and that in itself is still on topic IMHO so long
as
it's clear that it's not an official part of the standard. This
distinction is very important because newcomers to the group may think

that the extension we are discussing is part of the actual c standard
and then we grow a new breed of misguided programmers. To further
prove
this point, I used to work with a few guys who thought that MFC
(Microsoft Foundation Classes) were in fact part of the standard c
library as outlined by the C89 standard and they would argue with me
over it for hours at a time if I let them.

You appear to delight in parading your ignorance of these facts, so that all the world may know that you cannot grasp a simple classification concept such as topicality.
I've noticed this more and more over the past few weeks. Kenny seems
to
like disrupting posts in order to delight himself (or so it would seem

since none of the regulars seem to pay him any mind). He always whines

and complains that we're strictly on topic here and that is not always

the case. We don't always adhere to the rules when replying to a
message
(my reply being case and point), however nobody minds. Even when a
post
does not adhere to the rules here, we prefix the message with the
characters [OT] which allows others to filter out the junk from the
juice.

You also seem to think that the opinions you express on comp.lang.c are worth as much as anyone else's. Well, they will be, when (and only when) you demonstrate that your knowledge of C is sufficiently encyclopaedic that it becomes a good use of people's time to put up with your drivel for the sake of your expertise. Until then, you will always remain mere background noise.

Well put and I completely agree. Perhaps Kenny will one day grow up
and
learn that this newsgroup is not a battleground for showing off your
leet typing skills, rather it is an invaluable tool to those of us who

actually know c and need a little help now and again. Of course I
personaly feel that by the time this happens earth will no longer be
populated with c programmers as we will all have established life on
another planet that is not infested with trolls such as Kenny. Again,
that's just my personal view on things.

That's just my two cents.

Joe

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <rjlkf.592543$x 96.146168@attbi _s72>,
Joe Estock <je*****@NOSPAM nutextonline.co m> wrote:
....

Well put and I completely agree. Perhaps Kenny will one day grow up and
learn that this newsgroup is not a battleground for showing off your
leet typing skills, rather it is an invaluable tool to those of us who
actually know c and need a little help now and again. Of course I
personaly feel that by the time this happens earth will no longer be
populated with c programmers as we will all have established life on
another planet that is not infested with trolls such as Kenny. Again,
that's just my personal view on things.
My intent is A) never to grow up and B) never to post the same message
twice.
That's just my two cents.

4 cents now.