Slashdot Mirror
Understanding Memory Usage On Linux
Percy_Blakeney writes "Have you ever wondered why a simple text editor on Linux can use dozens of megabytes of memory? A recent blog posting explains how the output of the ps tool is misleading and how you can get a better idea of how much memory a process really uses."
...no process is using more than 10% of the available resources...
But hey, 10 processes are using 10%...
Hey! That's my sig you're smoking there!
Typical Slashdot response, blame the users for the browser's bloat. 99% of the users of Firefox are not programmers and wouldn't have the slightest clue what is going on. They just want to look at porn without popups or getting infected with spyware via IE's ActiveX vulnerabilities. Asking them to download some script, set environment variables, and then file bug reports is unrealistic since most of them can't even tell the difference between a web browser and a web site. That's what beta testers are supposed to be doing but we all know that 90% of the beta testers never bother to file any bug reports, even when the browser crashes.
Top will show you the same as ps does, ps calls /proc//statm and asks whats going on. The problem on linux is the copy on write principle wich saves heaps of memmory, but makes it virtually impossible to figure out what belongs to what. The thing is, when you fork it maps the memmory and marks everything as copy on write, when something needs to write to part of the memmory, then it will make the copy for each process.
However asking the process how much memory it has allocated will show all memory including stuff that is marked copy on write - that is, I could have 100 processes showing they each use 1.4MB of memory, because they all share the same libray, but in fact, its the same copy they are all using so I'm only using 1.4 MB instead of 140MB (+PCB et. al)
So, people don't know how to interpret the output of ps? And that's a Slashdot frontpage story?
Slashdot isn't only about breaking tech news; it's about keeping geeks generally informed. Many Linux geeks (including myself) probably learned something from the article that they didn't know. It's a well-written, informative article, and I'm glad Slashdot posted it because otherwise I probably would have never seen it. Not every Slashdotter already knows everything there is to know about Linux like you apparently do, and I imagine this isn't quite "common knowledge," so it's helpful for some of us.
What have I done wrong in my settings to deserve such trivial items?
No one forced you to click on "Read More." Sorry that you wasted a couple seconds reading the summary and realizing you already knew all about ps, but you didn't need to waste even more of your time trolling.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.