meltsner@crd.ge.com (Kenneth J Meltsner) (01/23/91)
In article <2383@aerodec.anu.edu.au>, tridge@aerodec.anu.edu.au (Andrew Tridgell) writes: |>Does anyone know why Xcfb would grow? Whenever anyone is logged on to |>the console of our DS3100 I've noticed that Xcfb grows - and doesn't |>shrink when they exit. It grew to 21M (in the SZ column of ps aux) at |>one stage so I kept getting an out of core message and had to reboot! |>After one day (and 2 console sessions) it has reached 7.6M and I don't |>relish having to reboot every few days. |> |>We are running Ultrix 4, have 16M of memory and a 600M disk (if that's |>relevant). Recently we have started using the mwm motif window manager - |>could that be doing it? Well, we're running Ultrix/RISC 3.1 on DS5000, have 32 meg of memory and a 600 M disk, run straight DECWindows, and we've got the same problem. We're up to 16M as we speak -- but we also have a huge amount of swap space so we can do LISP programming. Does this get fixed in 4.1? -- =============================================================================== Ken Meltsner | meltsner@crd.ge.com (518) 387-6391 GE Research and Development Center | Fax: (518) 387-7495 P.O. Box 8, Room K1/MB207 | Nothing I say should be attributed Schenectady, NY 12301 | to my employer, and probably vice-versa =================Dep't of Materials Science, ACME Looniversity=================
tridge@aerodec.anu.edu.au (Andrew Tridgell) (01/23/91)
Does anyone know why Xcfb would grow? Whenever anyone is logged on to the console of our DS3100 I've noticed that Xcfb grows - and doesn't shrink when they exit. It grew to 21M (in the SZ column of ps aux) at one stage so I kept getting an out of core message and had to reboot! After one day (and 2 console sessions) it has reached 7.6M and I don't relish having to reboot every few days. We are running Ultrix 4, have 16M of memory and a 600M disk (if that's relevant). Recently we have started using the mwm motif window manager - could that be doing it? Thanks in advance for any help. --- Andrew Tridgell tridge@aerodec.anu.edu.au
mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum) (01/24/91)
tridge@aerodec.anu.edu.au (Andrew Tridgell) writes: >Does anyone know why Xcfb would grow? Whenever anyone is logged on to >the console of our DS3100 I've noticed that Xcfb grows - and doesn't >shrink when they exit. > >We are running Ultrix 4 There is a "memory leak" in the 4.0 and 4.1 servers (RISC/VAX) that apparently stems from save-unders and some interaction with the memory allocator. This will be fixed in 4.2. A work-around is to start the server without save-unders, as "Xcfb -su" in /etc/ttys. Running without save-unders isn't a performance hit unless you're doing complex pictures. mjr. -- Bumper Sticker: "Unix wizards do it with small, efficient, modular tools" (C)Marcus Ranum, 1991
daniels@bigred.enet.dec.com (01/24/91)
In article <15990@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>, meltsner@crd.ge.com (Kenneth J Meltsner) writes... >Well, we're running Ultrix/RISC 3.1 on DS5000, have 32 meg of memory >and a 600 M disk, run straight DECWindows, and we've got the same >problem. We're up to 16M as we speak -- but we also have a huge >amount of swap space so we can do LISP programming. Does this get >fixed in 4.1? This is not the official word, but as I understand it, there is a patch available for V4.1. That is, the problem is not fixed in V4.1, but is fixed in a patch for that release. I suggest that you contact your Digital representative and ask them to find the patch. If they have trouble, you can give them my mail address (Daniels @ bigred @ vaxmail, if they use ALL-IN-1), and I will try to put them in touch with the right people. Again, I want to stress that I am not 100% positive the patch is in fact available, but that I recall being told of a patch to Xcfb which I believe addresses this problem. If I learn that I am mistaken, I will post the "official" status when I get it. You should contact your local rep and ask them to look into it. - Brad
sac@decuk.uvo.dec.com (Stephen A Carpenter) (01/25/91)
Try starting Xcfb with the -su flag.
bni@modulex.dk (Bent Nielsen) (01/25/91)
sac@decuk.uvo.dec.com (Stephen A Carpenter) writes: >Try starting Xcfb with the -su flag. Is the -su flag a unsupported option??? Because I can't find it in my manual!!!. -- Bent Nielsen <bni@modulex.dk> A/S MODULEX Phone: +45 44 53 30 11 Lyskaer 15 Telefax: +45 44 53 30 74 DK-2730 Herlev Denmark
p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst) (01/25/91)
In article <15990@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> meltsner@crd.ge.com writes: >problem. We're up to 16M as we speak -- but we also have a huge >amount of swap space so we can do LISP programming. Does this get >fixed in 4.1? Don't know about 4.1 but I've written a program that allows ordinary users to kill the Xserver (usually on logout). Regards, -- Michael van Elst UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
iglesias@draco.acs.uci.edu (Mike Iglesias) (01/26/91)
In article <709@modulex.dk> bni@modulex.dk (Bent Nielsen) writes: >Is the -su flag a unsupported option??? >Because I can't find it in my manual!!!. It's in the Ultrix 4.1 release notes, page 4-3. Mike Iglesias University of California, Irvine Internet: iglesias@draco.acs.uci.edu BITNET: iglesias@uci uucp: ...!ucbvax!ucivax!iglesias
gringort@wsl.dec.com (Joel Gringorten) (01/26/91)
I'm suprised that nobody's pointed this out yet, but... All X Servers have a tendancy to grow. They allocate storage for a variety of reasons resulting from client requests. When this allocated storage is free'd, the process doesn't grow any smaller. So the server process size can only grow larger and not smaller. There are some versions of Unix that can do a negative sbrk, but this only works if you happen to have contiguous address space at the end of your process. Fragmentation of the allocated storage space makes this less likely. The virtual address size (SIZE) of the server isn't particularly interesting anyway. What's interesting is the resident set size (RSS) which tells you how much memory you're really hogging. Many X Servers, including DEC's, have memory leaks which will cause them to hog more memory than they should. DEC has been religous about tracking down memory leaks in their servers over time. This is to say that the more recent the release, the fewer memory leaks a server is likely to have. The next release of Ultrix will contain a server based on MIT X11R4, which uses much less memory than previous releases due to reorganizing internal data structures. But even it will have a tendancy to grow in virtual address space in time. It's just the nature of the beast. -joel