I just did a "ps aux" on my Linux system and realized that
Firefox uses a massive 47 MB of RAM, and Thunderbird
uses an amazing 45 MB. I don't have a "hot rod" P4 computer
so perhaps this is all the more alarming to me, but
something seems to have gone wrong, I think. These are
programs that deal with piddling amounts of user data,
yet there so big!
I know that a good chunk of each is just shared
libraries, or so I infer because it seems to say that
the intrinsic usage is more like 25 MB each, but still...
25 megabytes is a lot of memory.
Just what the heck is all that RAM being used for
anyway?
And how has it come to this, that software that
deals with mere tens or hundreds of kilobytes of actual
user data somehow requires tens of megabytes of memory
to process it?
And I know what some will say, oh, the Windoze
and the Macintosh applications use the same
amount of memory... Well that doesn't justify it
in my view. Three examples of bad engineering
(or no engineering at all, I should say) don't make
it right.
22  1937 
On a sunny day (26 Dec 2005 06:28:32 -0800) it happened "Questioner"
<x6***@yahoo.com> wrote in
<11**********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>: I just did a "ps aux" on my Linux system and realized that
Firefox uses a massive 47 MB of RAM, and Thunderbird
uses an amazing 45 MB. I don't have a "hot rod" P4 computer
so perhaps this is all the more alarming to me, but
something seems to have gone wrong, I think. These are
programs that deal with piddling amounts of user data,
yet there so big!
Not to worry,. it will all be swapped out to disk :-)
On the Duron 950
top
Mem: 386780K av, 382692K used, 4088K free, 0K shrd, 8184K buff
Swap: 530104K av, 176208K used, 353896K free 181920K cached
hehe
I know that a good chunk of each is just shared
libraries, or so I infer because it seems to say that
the intrinsic usage is more like 25 MB each, but still...
25 megabytes is a lot of memory.
The 2 GB chip is out from Samsung and some others, 8 of these make 2GByte.
2000 / 25 = 80 Firefoxes..
This is likely the way of thinking, remember Billy The Gates claiming:
'640 KILO Byte should be enough for anyone?'
Price per bit is going way down....
Just what the heck is all that RAM being used for
anyway?
my_memory = (char*) malloc(25000000);
?
And how has it come to this, that software that
deals with mere tens or hundreds of kilobytes of actual
user data somehow requires tens of megabytes of memory
to process it?
yea, look how long it takes to render some html pages....
And I know what some will say, oh, the Windoze
and the Macintosh applications use the same
amount of memory... Well that doesn't justify it
in my view. Three examples of bad engineering
(or no engineering at all, I should say) don't make
it right.
Aha, well, many years ago I thought:
'mm maybe I should write my own webbrowser'.
Some related routines are in NewsFleX newsreader (I wrote), but I learned
really fast: That writing a good webbrowser is a lifetime project....
And some already are at it....
You can join them or improve, it is open source.
Something Win XP / exploder users cannot do.
But considering that cost per byte thingy, make sure your time adds up to
enough saving....
Jan Panteltje wrote: Aha, well, many years ago I thought:
'mm maybe I should write my own webbrowser'.
Some related routines are in NewsFleX newsreader (I wrote), but I learned
really fast: That writing a good webbrowser is a lifetime project....
And some already are at it....
You can join them or improve, it is open source.
I tried that myself. HTML is bad enough, I got it mostly working,
but adding Javascript would have taken real dedication.
I try to use Dillo when I am viewing simple pages. It's *much*
faster than Firefox on my older system.
But considering that cost per byte thingy, make sure your time adds up to
enough saving....
Yeah, but meanwhile, the landfills are filling up with our toxic
electronic waste, leaching it into our water supply etc.
On a sunny day (26 Dec 2005 07:29:51 -0800) it happened "Viator"
<x6***@yahoo.com> wrote in
<11*********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>:
Yeah, but meanwhile, the landfills are filling up with our toxic electronic waste, leaching it into our water supply etc.
Not to worry, that will all disappear in the background noise once the
WW3 nukes start flying in April (accourding to Dr. Sarfatti).
Panteltje a dit: Not to worry, that will all disappear in the background noise once the
WW3 nukes start flying in April (accourding to Dr. Sarfatti).
Oh, no. Not that idiot again. He came and did a presentation
at our Mensa group a couple years ago. I don't remember
the topic, but everyone pretty much picked apart his bogus
argumentation, showing he was full of it but in a polite way,
and then rather than admit he was wrong, he started acting petty
and issuing ad hominem attacks.
That isn't to say that WW3 isn't possible, but to pretend
Sarfatti has a clue about the how/why/when/who would
be too generous.
Questioner wrote:
Just what the heck is all that RAM being used for
anyway?
First look through /proc/%d/maps to see how much
is used for memory mappings and how much are
anonymous allocations. If you think there is too
much anonymous memory, then you will need to go
hunting in the source.
--
Kasper Dupont
Note to self: Don't try to allocate
256000 pages with GFP_KERNEL on x86.
On a sunny day (26 Dec 2005 11:14:44 -0800) it happened "Questioner"
<x6***@yahoo.com> wrote in
<11**********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups .com>: Panteltje a dit:
Not to worry, that will all disappear in the background noise once the
WW3 nukes start flying in April (accourding to Dr. Sarfatti).
Oh, no. Not that idiot again. He came and did a presentation
at our Mensa group a couple years ago. I don't remember
the topic, but everyone pretty much picked apart his bogus
argumentation, showing he was full of it but in a polite way,
and then rather than admit he was wrong, he started acting petty
and issuing ad hominem attacks.
That isn't to say that WW3 isn't possible, but to pretend
Sarfatti has a clue about the how/why/when/who would
be too generous.
Here: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...d9adfc98ec9443
He has also made it clear he was contacted by Aliens when young,
and I think he has been through a wormhole and came back before he left,
so he should know...
Some of us think Jack was victim of a student joke when that 'alien' called
him on the phone.....
Still he keeps it all up and has been for so many years, probably it sells.
Cannot believe he really believes in his own stuff, but of cause statistically
speaking he will be right some times.
And statistics get really weird once you have traveled back in time.....
"Questioner" <x6***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com... I just did a "ps aux" on my Linux system and realized that
Firefox uses a massive 47 MB of RAM, and Thunderbird
uses an amazing 45 MB. I don't have a "hot rod" P4 computer
so perhaps this is all the more alarming to me, but
something seems to have gone wrong, I think. These are
programs that deal with piddling amounts of user data,
yet there so big!
How did you determine that Firefox was using 47MB of RAM (physical
memory)? Are you sure it wasn't just usaing 47Mb of virtual memory?
DS
Questioner wrote: Panteltje a dit:
Not to worry, that will all disappear in the background noise once the
WW3 nukes start flying in April (accourding to Dr. Sarfatti).
Oh, no. Not that idiot again. He came and did a presentation
at our Mensa group a couple years ago. I don't remember
the topic, but everyone pretty much picked apart his bogus
argumentation, showing he was full of it but in a polite way,
and then rather than admit he was wrong, he started acting petty
and issuing ad hominem attacks.
That isn't to say that WW3 isn't possible, but to pretend
Sarfatti has a clue about the how/why/when/who would
be too generous.
One plausible scenario is : "Arc Light" by Eric Harry
Its fiction but you can just see it happening, well written and
you wont be able to put it down.
Eric (no its not by me)
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
In a scenario terrifyingly close to today's headlines, Harry's debut novel
opens with a North Korean invasion of South Korea that leads, through a
series of tragic errors and decisions, to a Russian nuclear attack on
military bases in the U.S. Like techno-thriller master Tom Clancy, Harry
offers a sprawling narrative that focuses on a small army of soldiers,
politicians and their families, American and Russian. National Security
Advisor Greg Lambert must keep and tell secrets that may lead to
Armageddon; Reservist David Chandler must leave his pregnant wife in order
to drive a tank; U.S. President Walter Livingston, eager for peace, must
endure the ignominy of impeachment; Russian General Yuri Razov must deal
with the consequences of his initial decision to launch nuclear missiles.
Ground, air and submarine battles alternate with scenes of anarchy
stateside as exhausted leaders are forced to make instant decisions that
might snuff out humanity forever. With a masterful grasp of military
strategy and geopolitics, Harry moves his characters through nightmares of
blood and death; his intricately detailed scenes of nuclear devastation are
particularly horrifying. Told through a series of rapid-fire climaxes, this
novel, a political and military cautionary tale of considerable power and
conviction, will keep readers riveted.
Well ALL new GUI apps im seeing are really absolutely a bloat
ppl are forget what efficient programming, If memory and processors r
becoming so cheap our mordern application should be literally flying
utilizing them ! ALL new GUI apps are simply throwing away memory, and
i tell you this thing called Java is the biggest bloat i ever saw ! it
simply eats and drinks and swallows RAM its disgusting to run
Eclipse(written completely in Java) even on a 256 MB Ram !!!.
Should start a seperate movement for efficient software ??!!
Well i totally agree with that making a web browser ( a secure one ) is
a lifetime project ... but just a passing thought ..
how about using the excellent text mode browser called Elinks? and
adding image support to it (and other relevant things)?
the only problem i figure out is that to make a gui for elinks we will
have to use a Graphics library with the SAME OLD BLOAT PROBLEM, Gtk+
Bloats (and blows too ), Qt Bloats, i heard of Fltk(fast light tool
kit) ... but im frustrated looking for alternatives myself ... even i
think i will have to write a simple fast graphics library for myself
someday ..
Should such ppl come together and start parallel projects which r
efficient than their existing counterparts & even using code from those
projects for quick development ???
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.development.apps.]
On 28 Dec 2005 00:16:21 -0800, xa********@gmail.com
<xa********@gmail.com> wrote:
Well i totally agree with that making a web browser ( a secure one ) is
a lifetime project ... but just a passing thought ..
how about using the excellent text mode browser called Elinks? and
adding image support to it (and other relevant things)?
the only problem i figure out is that to make a gui for elinks we will
have to use a Graphics library with the SAME OLD BLOAT PROBLEM
There is already a graphical version of Links called Links2.
--
Some of them want to use you,
Some of them want to be used by you,
....Everybody's looking for something.
-- Eurythmics
On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 00:16 -0800, xa********@gmail.com wrote: Well ALL new GUI apps im seeing are really absolutely a bloat
ppl are forget what efficient programming, //snip//
So, with RAM and hard drives as inexpensive as they are these days,
what's the problem with using them?
A 2005 automobile takes up a lot more room on the highway than a 1927
Model T Ford, but the new car is a lot faster than the old, and a lot
more comfortable to drive.
In article <11*********************@localhost.localdomain>,
Ray <gr******@cableone.net> wrote: On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 00:16 -0800, xa********@gmail.com wrote: Well ALL new GUI apps im seeing are really absolutely a bloat
ppl are forget what efficient programming, //snip//
So, with RAM and hard drives as inexpensive as they are these days,
what's the problem with using them?
Because not everyone has as much RAM and disk space available
to them as too many hot-shot programmers seem to think.
--
= Eric Bustad, Norwegian Bachelor Programmer
__/ [Questioner] on Monday 26 December 2005 14:28 \__ I just did a "ps aux" on my Linux system and realized that
Firefox uses a massive 47 MB of RAM, and Thunderbird
uses an amazing 45 MB. I don't have a "hot rod" P4 computer
so perhaps this is all the more alarming to me, but
something seems to have gone wrong, I think. These are
programs that deal with piddling amounts of user data,
yet there so big!
I know that a good chunk of each is just shared
libraries, or so I infer because it seems to say that
the intrinsic usage is more like 25 MB each, but still...
25 megabytes is a lot of memory.
Just what the heck is all that RAM being used for
anyway?
And how has it come to this, that software that
deals with mere tens or hundreds of kilobytes of actual
user data somehow requires tens of megabytes of memory
to process it?
And I know what some will say, oh, the Windoze
and the Macintosh applications use the same
amount of memory... Well that doesn't justify it
in my view. Three examples of bad engineering
(or no engineering at all, I should say) don't make
it right.
I checked this several days ago when you initially posted the message. I
could confirm that the same hog holds over here. It was even slightly
worse if I recall correctly, though it depends on the state the applica-
tion is in. I hadn't realised the extent of the hog. I prefer Java due to
interoperability, stability and quick development cycles that percolate
and come my way. Apart from Thunderbird and Firefox, I occasionally run
OpenOffice to view files which get sent to me *sign*. I also use RSSOwl
and recently installed JabRef.
As somebody else said in this thread, it is a matter of convenience --
both for the user and the programmer -- at the expense of what has become
cheap resources that are expandable. If you want efficient programs, you
might have to compromise and lose some functionality. The choice is yours
and is dependent on the hardware at hand. At the moment I use 350 MB of
RAM and 300 MB of swap. Many open programs in a 20,000 pixel-wide desktop.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "The only source is Open Source" http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:55pm up 21 days 1:06, 14 users, load average: 0.79, 0.64, 0.62
In article <11*********************@localhost.localdomain>, Ray writes: On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 00:16 -0800, xa********@gmail.com wrote: Well ALL new GUI apps im seeing are really absolutely a bloat
ppl are forget what efficient programming, //snip//
So, with RAM and hard drives as inexpensive as they are these days,
what's the problem with using them?
A 2005 automobile takes up a lot more room on the highway than a 1927
Model T Ford,
I refer you to:
<http://www.thecarconnection.com/Enthusiasts/Classics_Corner/Yoostabees_Driving_a_Model_T_Ford.S215.A9751.html>
wherin it states (towards the bottom):
"By the way, the Model T had a couple of dimensions close to a
contemporary Ford Focus,..."
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
The FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written is at: http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/sf-written
Please read it before posting.
In comp.os.linux.development.apps xa********@gmail.com wrote:
| Should start a seperate movement for efficient software ??!!
In C or ASM?
| Should such ppl come together and start parallel projects which r
| efficient than their existing counterparts & even using code from those
| projects for quick development ???
That's a contradiction. Why start from a point of bloat? Start from
scratch, instead.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Questioner <x6***@yahoo.com> wrote:
| I just did a "ps aux" on my Linux system and realized that
| Firefox uses a massive 47 MB of RAM, and Thunderbird
| uses an amazing 45 MB. I don't have a "hot rod" P4 computer
| so perhaps this is all the more alarming to me, but
| something seems to have gone wrong, I think. These are
| programs that deal with piddling amounts of user data,
| yet there so big!
Part of this is due to programming trends to make more use of work other
people have already done in the form of libraries. Even if one could
have coded something they need in 40 to 100 lines of C code, they will
be admonished if do not instead just call some library function that
already does something similar and just use about 20 lines of code to
make it effectively fit (and load down the address space with the whole
library).
| I know that a good chunk of each is just shared
| libraries, or so I infer because it seems to say that
| the intrinsic usage is more like 25 MB each, but still...
| 25 megabytes is a lot of memory.
|
| Just what the heck is all that RAM being used for
| anyway?
Everything gets abstracted, and everything that is abstracted builds
some big structure (using some re-usable library code, of course).
Then everything gets accessed in one or more phases of parsing and
rendering such that the memory footprint of the program ends up
stomping all over the whole address space as all these fragmented
data structures get accessed by all these various functions used to
lookup data to see if it might influence what is going on at any one
point in the applicaton.
| And how has it come to this, that software that
| deals with mere tens or hundreds of kilobytes of actual
| user data somehow requires tens of megabytes of memory
| to process it?
The data gets parsed into a form directly usable by all these abstract
methods. The original HTML/XHTML/XML/whatever data is not used at that
point. The abstract data is used via all the abstract methods, over and
over repeatedly as new data arrives in the stream and the structures
are added on to and re-rendered.
| And I know what some will say, oh, the Windoze
| and the Macintosh applications use the same
| amount of memory... Well that doesn't justify it
| in my view. Three examples of bad engineering
| (or no engineering at all, I should say) don't make
| it right.
It's the modern way of abstracting everything into oblivion. It makes
the process of developing the application faster and faster.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 26 Dec 2005 06:28:32 -0800, "Questioner" <x6***@yahoo.com> wrote:
|I just did a "ps aux" on my Linux system and realized that
|Firefox uses a massive 47 MB of RAM, and Thunderbird
|uses an amazing 45 MB. I don't have a "hot rod" P4 computer
|so perhaps this is all the more alarming to me, but
|something seems to have gone wrong, I think.
Hehehe, firefox 1.5 on Win XP has 118 Megs of my RAM right now, and I've seen it
get up to 400MB. Rumors I've read say it has something to do with forward and
back arrow caching.
I only have Mozilla 1.7.8 on the only linux box (Debian Sarge) that sees the
light of init 5 around here, and with 8 tabs open, and a little back and forth
through pages, It's taking up 51 Megs - with only the browser portion in use..
--
LesterOfPuppets http://stumptownrock.servebeer.com/ http://thedings.servebeer.com/ ph**************@ipal.net wrote: In comp.os.linux.development.apps Questioner <x6***@yahoo.com> wrote:
| I just did a "ps aux" on my Linux system and realized that
| Firefox uses a massive 47 MB of RAM, and Thunderbird
| uses an amazing 45 MB. I don't have a "hot rod" P4 computer
| so perhaps this is all the more alarming to me, but
| something seems to have gone wrong, I think. These are
| programs that deal with piddling amounts of user data,
| yet there so big!
Part of this is due to programming trends to make more use of work other
people have already done in the form of libraries. Even if one could
have coded something they need in 40 to 100 lines of C code, they will
be admonished if do not instead just call some library function that
already does something similar and just use about 20 lines of code to
make it effectively fit (and load down the address space with the whole
library).
| I know that a good chunk of each is just shared
| libraries, or so I infer because it seems to say that
| the intrinsic usage is more like 25 MB each, but still...
| 25 megabytes is a lot of memory.
|
| Just what the heck is all that RAM being used for
| anyway?
Everything gets abstracted, and everything that is abstracted builds
some big structure (using some re-usable library code, of course).
Then everything gets accessed in one or more phases of parsing and
rendering such that the memory footprint of the program ends up
stomping all over the whole address space as all these fragmented
data structures get accessed by all these various functions used to
lookup data to see if it might influence what is going on at any one
point in the applicaton.
| And how has it come to this, that software that
| deals with mere tens or hundreds of kilobytes of actual
| user data somehow requires tens of megabytes of memory
| to process it?
The data gets parsed into a form directly usable by all these abstract
methods. The original HTML/XHTML/XML/whatever data is not used at that
point. The abstract data is used via all the abstract methods, over and
over repeatedly as new data arrives in the stream and the structures
are added on to and re-rendered.
| And I know what some will say, oh, the Windoze
| and the Macintosh applications use the same
| amount of memory... Well that doesn't justify it
| in my view. Three examples of bad engineering
| (or no engineering at all, I should say) don't make
| it right.
It's the modern way of abstracting everything into oblivion. It makes
the process of developing the application faster and faster.
I got curious so i ran top:
top - 04:57:37 up 29 days, 14:25, 6 users, load average: 1.65, 1.94, 2.05
Tasks: 100 total, 2 running, 98 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 28.2% us, 71.8% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
Mem: 1035776k total, 981740k used, 54036k free, 164912k buffers
Swap: 3140656k total, 304664k used, 2835992k free, 263116k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
9104 xxxxxxxx 25 0 119m 13m 46m R 99.1 1.3 16821:26 kdeinit
9005 xxxxxxxx -51 0 25156 5260 10m S 0.7 0.5 188:45.47 artsd
8352 root 15 0 238m 65m 133m S 0.3 6.4 1067:56 X
23296 xxxxxxxx 16 0 58076 26m 38m S 0.3 2.6 71:43.85 kdeinit
21358 root 17 0 1968 952 1764 R 0.3 0.1 0:00.02 top
1 root 16 0 596 80 452 S 0.0 0.0 0:01.58 init
2 root 34 19 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.03 ksoftirqd/0
3 root 5 -10 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:01.25 events/0
4 root 5 -10 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.01 khelper
5 root 5 -10 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 netlink/0
6 root 6 -10 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kacpid
34 root 5 -10 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:01.58 kblockd/0
44 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:03.41 pdflush
45 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:02.90 pdflush
47 root 6 -10 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 aio/0
46 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:09.60 kswapd0
630 root 25 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kseriod
1741 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:29.91 kjournald
dumbarton:/home/xxxxxxxx #
I have always ran high memory machines, even since my first which maxed out
at 8MB (it came with 2MB and ran a both MS and Linux GUI's)
--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen Die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.
--Shiller
Joseph2k wrote:
I got curious so i ran top:
top - 04:57:37 up 29 days, 14:25, 6 users, load average: 1.65, 1.94, 2.05
Tasks: 100 total, 2 running, 98 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 28.2% us, 71.8% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
Mem: 1035776k total, 981740k used, 54036k free, 164912k buffers
Swap: 3140656k total, 304664k used, 2835992k free, 263116k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
9104 xxxxxxxx 25 0 119m 13m 46m R 99.1 1.3 16821:26 kdeinit
Is that 16821 hours of CPU time? How could that be possible when the
system has only been up for about a month? Whatever it is, I say this
looks like a KDE bug. I't use "strace -p 9104" to find out what is
going on.
--
Kasper Dupont -- Rigtige mænd skriver deres egne backupprogrammer
#define _(_)"d.%.4s%."_"2s" /* This is my new email address */
char*_="@2kaspner"_()"%03"_("4s%.")"t\n";printf(_+ 11,_+6,_,6,_+2,_+7,_+6);
Kasper Dupont wrote: Joseph2k wrote:
I got curious so i ran top:
top - 04:57:37 up 29 days, 14:25, 6 users, load average: 1.65, 1.94,
2.05
Tasks: 100 total, 2 running, 98 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 28.2% us, 71.8% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0%
si
Mem: 1035776k total, 981740k used, 54036k free, 164912k buffers
Swap: 3140656k total, 304664k used, 2835992k free, 263116k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
9104 xxxxxxxx 25 0 119m 13m 46m R 99.1 1.3 16821:26 kdeinit
Is that 16821 hours of CPU time? How could that be possible when the
system has only been up for about a month? Whatever it is, I say this
looks like a KDE bug. I't use "strace -p 9104" to find out what is
going on.
I think it is seconds. "strace -p 9104" produced garbage.
--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen Die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.
--Shiller
>>>>> "Joseph2k" == Joseph2k <jo******@lanset.com> writes: PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 9104
xxxxxxxx 25 0 119m 13m 46m R 99.1 1.3 16821:26 kdeinit
Is that 16821 hours of CPU time? How could that be possible
when the system has only been up for about a month? Whatever it
is, I say this looks like a KDE bug. I't use "strace -p 9104"
to find out what is going on.
Joseph2k> I think it is seconds. "strace -p 9104" produced
Joseph2k> garbage.
It should be minutes. Don't you see the ":" following "16821"?
--
Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´° ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: da****@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: sonnystarks |
last post by:
Page construction in progress:
http://www.sdisplay.info/test/
Firefox does not recognize background image referred to on styles.css
IE sees it with no problem.
What is the problem?
Thanx,
|
by: minnesotti |
last post by:
Hi there,
I subscribed to a photographic pictures-hosting website which is heavy
on JavaScript. My preferred latest browser Mozilla Firefox does not
work with it -- no pictures are displayed and...
|
by: antonyliu2002 |
last post by:
Hi,
It looks like so many people are having problems with the javascript
submit in firefox. I searched around, but haven't found a solution
yet. Mostly, people were saying, try this or try...
|
by: Xah Lee |
last post by:
Look at this page
http://xahlee.org/emacs/wrap-url.html
Look at it in Firebox, look at it in Safari, in Opera, and look at it
in Microsoft Internet Explorer.
The only fucked up case, is...
|
by: Xah Lee |
last post by:
Look at this page
http://xahlee.org/emacs/wrap-url.html
Look at it in Firebox, look at it in Safari, in Opera, and look at it
in Microsoft Internet Explorer.
The only fucked up case, is...
| | |
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing,...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new...
| | |
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The...
|
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated ...
| |
