Re: Memory Footprint claims

[Dan Siemon <dsiemon stratford webgate net>]

Here are my memory usage's to compare against the ones below. Can anyone
comment on the reason why my Gnome processes seem to take up much more
memory? This thread seems to come up every once in a while lately with
memory usage claims varying wildly. It would be nice to get a definitive
answer on this.

  559 dan        1   0 16292  15M  9536 S       0  0.0  8.4   0:08
netscape
  508 root       5   0 11308  11M  1776 S       0  0.0  5.8   0:06 X
  534 dan        0   0  4496 4496  2660 S       0  0.0  2.3   0:00 panel
  560 dan        0   0  3624 3624  3072 S       0  0.0  1.8   0:00
netscape
  551 dan        1   0  2832 2832  2248 S       0  0.0  1.4   0:00
gnomepager_a
  553 dan        0   0  2776 2776  2200 S       0  0.0  1.4   0:00
mixer_applet
  548 dan        0   0  2700 2700  2140 S       0  0.0  1.3   0:00
gen_util_app
  512 dan        0   0  2224 2224  1744 S       0  0.0  1.1   0:00
gnome-sessio
  527 dan        2   0  1988 1988  1420 S       0  0.0  1.0   0:00
wmaker
  514 dan        0   0  1728 1728  1352 S       0  0.0  0.8   0:00
gnome-smprox







James Green wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Just wondered over to www.ude.org (Unix Desktop Environment) and took a
> look at the screenshots (I don't like 'em btw). I quote:
> 
> "This screen-shot shows GtkICQ, The Gimp, 2xXV (UDE-Logo and the huge
> background), Netscape, Applixware and an ETerm. There are still 3mb RAM of
> 64mb RAM free. With GNOME all 64mb RAM are used up just after starting it
> without applications."
> 
> Well with three X @ 1152x768x24bit, latest gnome + digital clock, gnome
> pager, Modemlights, CDPlayer applets, three e-terms (one with BitchX, one
> with pine, with running top), plus GQMpeg playing via mpg123 *AND*
> Netscape Navigator 4.06 not to mention background processed, I have 2.4Mb
> free RAM and using 24Mb swapfile on my 64Mb system.
> 
> Does anyone from the Gnome/RedHat development team(s) feel like countering
> UDE's claims officially? Surely Gnome can't be *that* bad?
> 
> top says:
> 
>   PID USER     PRI  NI  SIZE  RSS SHARE STAT  LIB %CPU %MEM   TIME COMMAND
>  8757 root       3   0 32668  24M  2024 S       0  0.9 40.3   9:45 X
>  8941 jg         0   0 21444  13M  1444 S       0  0.0 22.2   6:57
> netscape
>  9995 jg        19   0  2376 2376  2232 R       0 10.0  3.7   0:08 mpg123
>  9992 jg         0   0  2144 2144  1224 S       0  0.0  3.3   0:03 Eterm
>  9923 gnome      0   0  1556 1556  1220 S       0  0.0  2.4   0:00 pine
>  8793 jg         0   0  2252 1500   856 S       0  0.0  2.3   0:02 gmc
>  8822 jg         0   0  1812 1480  1104 S       0  0.0  2.3   0:11
> gnomepager_a
>  9796 jg         0   0  1776 1376   260 S       0  0.0  2.1   0:04 Eterm
>  8770 jg         0   0  1916 1272   684 S       0  0.1  2.0   0:22
> enlightenmen
>  9996 jg         1   0  1132 1132  1008 S       0  0.5  1.7   0:00 mpg123
>  9862 jg         0   0  1700  972   792 S       0  0.0  1.5   0:00 gqmpeg
>  9877 jg         0   0   960  960   440 S       0  0.0  1.5   0:03 Eterm
>  9812 jg         0   0  1072  944   548 S       0  0.0  1.4   0:00 BitchX
>  9921 gnome      0   0   892  892   556 S       0  0.0  1.4   0:00 su
>  8820 jg         0   0  1320  844   628 S       0  0.0  1.3   0:05
> asclock_appl
>  9997 jg         0   0   836  836   652 S       0  0.0  1.3   0:00 bash
>  8818 jg         0   0  1288  824   600 S       0  0.0  1.2   0:00
> modemlights_
>  9922 gnome      0   0   780  780   632 S       0  0.0  1.2   0:00 bash
> 10008 jg         5   0   728  728   560 R       0  1.5  1.1   0:01 top
>  8766 jg         0   0  1000  720   564 S       0  0.0  1.1   0:04
> gnome-sessio
>  8824 jg         0   0  1164  616   420 S       0  0.0  0.9   0:00
> cdplayer_app
> 
> Oh, and this thing's been up:
> 
> [jg@cyberstorm .gnome-desktop]$ uptime
>   2:32pm  up 4 days,  1:35,  1 user,  load average: 0.42, 0.44, 0.37
> 
> --
>         FAQ: Frequently-Asked Questions at http://www.gnome.org/gnomefaq
>          To unsubscribe: mail gnome-list-request@gnome.org with
>                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.