[XMONAD] Is this normal?

tcoffeep · 2009-07-05 06:43:27

In openbox, when I'd run my normal apps ( ie - firefox, thunderbird and pidgin when i turn my computer on ), I'd only use 8% of my ram capacity ( 2gb ). In xmonad, it jumped to 20% and didn't go back down. I'm just wondering if this is a normal reaction. I always thought xmonad was lighter on resources for some reason =X

mikesd · 2009-07-05 07:05:04

It's not normal. I'm using less than 4% with a bunch of terms and firefox open. Not sure why yours is high when using xmonad. Maybe check with htop to see what process is the culprit.

tcoffeep · 2009-07-05 14:34:49

Well, at first it's pretty heavy and then it just disappears.

However :

X and Conky use 28.95-30.85% and 17.91-22.25% of my CPU respectively. They don't use more than 1-4% with Openbox.

I have a sneaking suspicion I am "doing it wrong", but cannot be sure in which regard.

Zepp · 2009-07-05 14:45:39

Has your conky changed at all?

tcoffeep · 2009-07-05 14:47:23

no. it's exactly the same, which is why i find it odd.

Zepp · 2009-07-05 14:59:16

Ya that's a little odd, what is your xmonad.hs and conkyrc look like?

tcoffeep · 2009-07-05 15:14:17

Zepp wrote:

Ya that's a little odd, what is your xmonad.hs and conkyrc look like?

.conkyrc : http://pastebin.com/d19a54fc

I haven't done an xmonad.hs yet, so it'd be as vanilla as can be. I'm not sure where to find that.

brisbin33 · 2009-07-05 16:27:56

i'm really aggrevated by this too. mostly becase i freaking love xmonad. i find that if i startx and then leave my computer idle, my X process will creep up about 1% cpu usage each hour from a start of like 0.9%. and it'll just keep going, one day i came back to find it eating 90% of my cpu! the only 'culprit' process is X itself. doing a trace in htop shows "= -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable)" flying by faster than i can read it.

i'm doing some research and i'll make my own post with configs and error messages in the next few days. just wanted to confirm i'm also getting odd and annoying cpu issues with xmonad

64 bit
nvidia proprietary
tried xmobar-darcs from aur
tried w/ and w/o xcompmgr

tcoffeep · 2009-07-05 17:38:27

well, i'm 32-bit, nvidia proprietary, never tried the aur packages, though, and haven't used xcompmgr.

babylonian13 · 2009-07-06 00:50:45

When I am using a tile window manager, no matter which (awesome, xmonad, dwm, wmii, etc, because I have tried them all and I leave them always with the default configuration from the install) I first start an application and it's fine, it's fonts are normal sized. I change the resolution with xrandr -s 1400x1050 (I have a HP 19' widescreen monitor and when I open xmonad it starts with 800x600 resolution). But when I open a second application, it's fonts are terribly huge.

This doesn't happen if I don't change the resolution with xrandr; the second applications fonts remain the same size as the first one.

I don't get it.....why does this happen???? How can I fix it for xmonad?? Please, Help!!!

Thanx in advance!

Last edited by babylonian13 (2009-07-06 00:51:42)

moljac024 · 2009-07-06 07:35:52

babylonian13 wrote:

When I am using a tile window manager, no matter which (awesome, xmonad, dwm, wmii, etc, because I have tried them all and I leave them always with the default configuration from the install) I first start an application and it's fine, it's fonts are normal sized. I change the resolution with xrandr -s 1400x1050 (I have a HP 19' widescreen monitor and when I open xmonad it starts with 800x600 resolution). But when I open a second application, it's fonts are terribly huge.
This doesn't happen if I don't change the resolution with xrandr; the second applications fonts remain the same size as the first one.
I don't get it.....why does this happen???? How can I fix it for xmonad?? Please, Help!!!
Thanx in advance!

Please start a new thread describing your problem.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-07-05 06:43:27

[XMONAD] Is this normal?

#2 2009-07-05 07:05:04

Re: [XMONAD] Is this normal?

#3 2009-07-05 14:34:49

Re: [XMONAD] Is this normal?

#4 2009-07-05 14:45:39

Re: [XMONAD] Is this normal?

#5 2009-07-05 14:47:23

Re: [XMONAD] Is this normal?

#6 2009-07-05 14:59:16

Re: [XMONAD] Is this normal?

#7 2009-07-05 15:14:17

Re: [XMONAD] Is this normal?

#8 2009-07-05 16:27:56

Re: [XMONAD] Is this normal?

#9 2009-07-05 17:38:27

Re: [XMONAD] Is this normal?

#10 2009-07-06 00:50:45

Re: [XMONAD] Is this normal?

#11 2009-07-06 07:35:52

Re: [XMONAD] Is this normal?

Board footer