Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
After 3-4 days of usage the resource monitor applet reports: Mono-beagled: 169.3 MiB resident memory 205.6 MiB writable memory 16.9 MiB shared memory Mono-beagled-helper: 65.2 MiB resident memory 73.4 MiB writable memory 13.5 MiB shared memory ... and this keeps increasing... I find it highly unusual that my normal gnome desktop uses 700 MB RAM. ============= Also, occasionally I see 20% cpu usage by beagle, usually at the most inconvenient time, as others have reported on fedora-list. =========
Hmm, this situation might have been improved recently [ I see lower memory usage right now ]. I need to do more testing to be sure there is a leak involved... Leak or not, mono-beagled has completely unreasonable resource requirements, especially for software I don't use [ I'm sure it's great, but I know exactly where each and every thing is on my desktop ]. Right now it's using 90% CPU, and about 180MB resident memory [ 2 daemons + beagleindex ].
I just encountered this apparent memory leak. After less than a couple of hours, mono-beagled is using 71.4 % of my 2.0 GB of RAM. That's 1.4 GB. This does not seem to be good behavior to me. Oh, and I just noticed that my 2.0 GB of swap is also being heavily used. Normally, swap is not touched. $ free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 2056132 2018152 37980 0 8772 196748 -/+ buffers/cache: 1812632 243500 Swap: 2096472 1343796 752676 $ ps aux | grep mono-beagled berryja 2946 0.2 0.6 178592 12780 ? Sl 21:36 0:21 mono-beagled-helper --debug /usr/lib64/beagle/IndexHelper.exe berryja 2723 0.6 70.7 2963828 1453764 ? Sl 21:34 0:47 mono-beagled --debug /usr/lib64/beagle/BeagleDaemon.exe --bg
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 183898 ***
Rahul, While bug 183898 is similar to this one, it does not mention memory usage, only CPU usage. Is this really a duplicate? Should we update 183898 to include the memory usage problems and just track it all in one bug? Jonathan
(In reply to comment #4) > Rahul, > While bug 183898 is similar to this one, it does not mention memory usage, only > CPU usage. Is this really a duplicate? Should we update 183898 to include the > memory usage problems and just track it all in one bug? > Jonathan These are duplicating since there are essentially the same problem of a potential memory leak. Updating the open bug report can help but a duplicate is always cross referenced to help the relevant developers dig out specific information to help reproduce issues