On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 20:02 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 06:45:10PM -0400, William L. Maltby wrote: > ><snip> > > > > Mem: 775708k total, 764752k used, 10956k free, 60780k buffers > > Swap: 1572856k total, 160k used, 1572696k free, 377324k cached > > > > PID VIRT RES SHR %MEM SWAP COMMAND > > 24729 127m 32m 15m 4.3 94m evolution > > 3409 97220 5268 4304 0.7 89m evolution-data- > > 2851 115m 36m 7120 4.8 79m X > > 3359 19904 6128 5316 0.8 13m gnome-volume-ma > (...) > > 3355 14768 7524 5984 1.0 7244 metacity > > 7182 10328 3436 2280 0.4 6892 sendmail > > 18501 11080 4248 1912 0.5 6832 cupsd > > > > Note that the summary line says 160k of swap is used. The man pages say > > the summary and the details under "SWAP" are both reported in "k". No > > mention of "m" is made, I presume that it means "megabytes"? > > <snip> > > Now, if I treat all those numbers ending in "m" as megabytes, it doesn't > > take long to see that I've been lied to somewhere along the way. Or > > alternatively, I'm dense and "Just Don't Get It" (TM). > > > > Any help? > > I can see two possible explanations for this. Maybe both in conjunction. > > One is that you get getting multiple entries for the same processes, > but different threads. That used to be the way of it up until .. humm, > not sure ... 2.4, I guess. Not sure exactly how it works these days. I would > have to check. > > The other is the overcommit kernel feature. It is possible the kernel > is overcommiting memory, and thus showing more than it really in > use. > > One last thing possible (just thought about it) is that top is adding > more than one namespace to those totals. Maybe shared memory (/dev/shm ?). > Or any other possible namespace. > > I agree it does seem odd, and I have seen this kind of stuff happening > before. Once I started hunting it down, and found the reason for it. > It was some time ago (2.2 ? 2.4 ? Not sure), so I'm reasonably sure > it is not the same reason these days. But I hope I gave you are > least some pointers for where to start looking. Would I be correct if I summarized as "Looks like a bug, and possibly a regression that you had seen before"? I think then I'll first start by seeing if there is an open bug somewhere. I hate having to chase code right now as I'm trying to improve my knowledge and use of sendmail, DNS, ... and a whole host of other things that flew by me over the years. <*sigh*> Anyhow, thanks for getting back to me. I'm going to try to work investigation of this in with the other things I've got going. > - -- > Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob at suespammers.org> > <snip sig stuff> -- Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060605/edacc1ed/attachment-0004.sig>