X is eating RAM

mutlu_inek · 2010-09-25 12:15:15

Oh people, please just let it go. All of you are mistaken in several ways and discussing this would not only severely off-topic, but also tedious and unnerving. If you know something, share it. If you have prejudices or want to defend certain people or software, make sure you know what you are writing about.

Could someone close this thread, please?

mhertz · 2010-09-25 21:00:43

WTF are you talking about "ALL" of us is wrong in several ways! Yes, going off-topic isn't productive, but please refrain from stating that i'm wrong without knowing what you're talking about(and I can only conclude that you don't, when questioning my specific post!), thank you very much! I do not have prejudices or wanting to defend somebody, but rather my post was against prejudices!

There, sorry others

Last edited by mhertz (2010-09-25 21:09:43)

apefish · 2010-09-26 22:20:38

Hmm, lets not let this thread derail just yet. I'm interested in whether it is actually possible that an app could be doing some internal cacheing and then giveing it up when the OS requests it. As far as I know there is no way to tell that the system is low on memory other than malloc returning NULL. Are these mythical KDE apps constantly mallocing just to see if it works? Vamp, what OS interface do you suppose allows an app's private memory to be freed by the OS?

soaliar · 2010-09-26 23:06:10

mutlu_inek wrote:

Oh people, please just let it go. All of you are mistaken in several ways and discussing this would not only severely off-topic, but also tedious and unnerving. If you know something, share it. If you have prejudices or want to defend certain people or software, make sure you know what you are writing about.
Could someone close this thread, please?

And I'll need to open a new one about my problem.

Just a few minutes ago, I was using KDE with effects, Aurorae Seven style, blur, etc., and everything was going perfect. The, after using chrome for two minutes, X was on 250 MB of RAM. It seems to be random. :S

agapito · 2010-10-05 22:44:13

After 5 hours on KDE 4.5.2 my xorg process is on 800 MB :S

soaliar · 2010-10-06 20:56:31

agapito wrote:

After 5 hours on KDE 4.5.2 my xorg process is on 800 MB :S

Are you using Aurorae?

agapito · 2010-10-07 19:31:20

soaliar wrote:

agapito wrote:
After 5 hours on KDE 4.5.2 my xorg process is on 800 MB :S
Are you using Aurorae?

No. Fresh KDE Arch installation with catalyst driver on 64 bits.

After 10 hours, 956 MB of Ram wasted. With gnome + compiz xorg never exceeds 200 MB.

soaliar · 2010-10-07 20:01:29

agapito wrote:

soaliar wrote:
agapito wrote:
After 5 hours on KDE 4.5.2 my xorg process is on 800 MB :S
Are you using Aurorae?
No. Fresh KDE Arch installation with catalyst driver on 64 bits.
After 10 hours, 956 MB of Ram wasted. With gnome + compiz xorg never exceeds 200 MB.
http://i53.tinypic.com/30wp5ah.jpg

Without using Aurorae, my xorg proccess uses more than 40 MB. I spent a couple of days using Oxygen and Aurorae and checking the RAM.

schivmeister · 2010-10-07 20:13:12

lagagnon wrote:

My system is a very basic wmii window manager - on it X consumes 182 MB of virtual RAM and just 29 MB of resident RAM.

Similar numbers here, except I use KDE.

Arch Linux

#26 2010-09-25 12:15:15

Re: X is eating RAM

#27 2010-09-25 21:00:43

Re: X is eating RAM

#28 2010-09-26 22:20:38

Re: X is eating RAM

#29 2010-09-26 23:06:10

Re: X is eating RAM

#30 2010-10-05 22:44:13

Re: X is eating RAM

#31 2010-10-06 20:56:31

Re: X is eating RAM

#32 2010-10-07 19:31:20

Re: X is eating RAM

#33 2010-10-07 20:01:29

Re: X is eating RAM

#34 2010-10-07 20:13:12

Re: X is eating RAM

Board footer