| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Oasis
   |
Posted - 2003.07.08 13:10:00 -
[1]
After a couple of hours Eve is using 330MB on my computer. I switched to windowed and opened cacheman. (www.outertech.com) and forced it to reclaim memory. mem usage dropped to 250mb. So now i've set cacheman to reclaim mem even when the processor usage is high. And it results in keeping the eve program running clean for hours.
The program is freeware. No ad's.
My system 1.3gig celeron. 512MB sdram. 3 scsiu2w hd's 1 only for Eve.
I still think Eve is a high defragmentater (or however you write that).
It's on the seperate HD to give me a good idea of how much it's throwing around. Till now i'd say it's scattering itself for about 30% of total used disk space during playing.
Hope someone can use this info or has ideas or something to say about this.
Ciao
|
Angry Sheep
|
Posted - 2003.07.08 16:16:00 -
[2]
I have noticed the same with the continuing scattering of files as it throuws itself around my disks, It would be handy to be able to have some optimisation settings, e.g. a drive where you can place the cache
It's a Dog eat Dog World out there and I'm wearing Milky Bone underwear
|
Mistaph leBaal
|
Posted - 2003.07.13 09:57:00 -
[3]
All that space is just temporary. If it was needed, EVE wouldn't use that much. All cacheman is doing is claiming to need the memory, so EVE frees it up, like it should. If you're not using that space for anything, is there a reason EVE shouldn't use it? If you have 512MB of memory, seems perfectly fine for EVE to use 320Mb of it. That's what it's for after all.
|
Blinder
|
Posted - 2003.07.14 13:15:00 -
[4]
But eventually eve will claim to need 513, and if you only have 512, you're SOL. This issue is that the program (like almost all other windows programs, it seems) fails to deallocate main memory properly. So, eventually, it has to hit up the swap file an inordinate amount, and if you let it go long enough the computer will run out of main memory entirely and crash.
So, forcing windows to take the extra memory back is a good thing. Sure, at 330/512 it isn't a problem, but when it gets up around 500/512, it is.
|
Jack Hayden
|
Posted - 2003.08.02 14:09:00 -
[5]
Too much crappy code. I fail to understand why programmer can't be arsed to actually deallocate memory. Just plain lazy?
á
"Spelling and grammatical errors are placed solely to test your abilities as a proofreader. All prices include 25% VAT."
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.09 15:32:00 -
[6]
I'm using 1GB of RAM and I haven't noticed any memory hit even when I've had Eve running for 12-15 hours solid.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
BrightCandle
|
Posted - 2003.08.10 11:56:00 -
[7]
It's not so much that eve isn't deallocating memory but rather that call doesn't necessarily go to windows.
In 'C' programs a heap manager is part of the compiled code, which worries about the allocation and deallocation of blocks of memory. When you deallocate a block it doesn't get given back to the Operating system, instead it marks the block as empty in the heap manager.
Had it given the block back to windows memory on the machine would be incredibly fragmented, with little blocks everywhere. That isn't very good for performance so it is better to waste a bit of RAM and reuse the same area of memory in the program.
As time goes on you get small blocks that aren't allocatable very often and memory usage slowly will increase. The memory usage you see in windows is more a peak usage, eve is almost certainly using less than that to run but may well have quite a fragmented heap after several hours of allocating and deallocating memory. Or it happily has defragemented it's heap but at some point was using a peak amount of memory and hasn't given it back to the operating system.
I'm afraid I don't know how python handles its heap so can't comment on how the python code is doing it, but I suspect it is similiar to most C implementations.
|
Mistaph leBaal
|
Posted - 2003.08.10 17:07:00 -
[8]
I have experience with non-stackless Python - it's much the same story. I would be suprised if Stackless was radically different. It's stackless, not heapless :-)
Until anyone actually sees a real problem - excessive swapping to disk, other programs frozen out, etc, I think it's just the way the memory manager works. Chill.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |