[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PURESIZE increased (again)
From: |
Luc Teirlinck |
Subject: |
Re: PURESIZE increased (again) |
Date: |
Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:29:07 -0500 (CDT) |
Bill Wohler wrote:
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> Again, this is 170KB growth, certainly not a negligible amount of
> memory.
That growth is .35% of my 48 MB Emacs process, so for what it's worth,
*I* think it's negligible ;-).
When I suggested that it even _might_ be a problem, I somehow saw a
zero too many, I thought it was 1.7M (I should have looked more
carefully), in which case it could have been something that _might_ be
worth worrying about.
Given that it only is 170K, I agree that it is obvious that this
increase represents no problem whatsoever and that we should not worry
about it.
When I start Emacs with `emacs -q -nbc', the original memory usage is
9856K. But when I start actually using it, the Megs start growing
immediately. For instance, if all I do in my freshly launched Emacs,
is `M-x customize-browse' and open all top level groups to get a basic
overview (by clicking on the `+' next to it and then closing it back
by clicking on the `-'), the memory used goes up to 19568K. (That is
opening _only_ the top level groups, no subgroups at all.) And then
something apparently added an extra 8K to it quite a while after I
stopped using the Emacs (probably font-lock or redisplay).
If you have so little memory that 170K is worth worrying about, you
quite simply have not enough memory to run Emacs (and _definitely_ not
enough memory to run things like Gnome, KDE or common web browsers
like Mozilla). If you have so little memory that even 10K is
non-negligible, I have no idea what you could run. Not even vi, which
takes exactly 1 Meg. Since I doubt that vi really requires _exactly_ 1M,
even vi, which is especially designed to work on systems with very
little memory, does not seem to care about small fudge factors like 10K.
Sincerely,
Luc.
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), (continued)
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/22
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Luc Teirlinck, 2006/04/22
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/22
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Nick Roberts, 2006/04/22
- RE: PURESIZE increased (again), Drew Adams, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Alan Shutko, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Richard Stallman, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Nick Roberts, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Bill Wohler, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again),
Luc Teirlinck <=
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Bill Wohler, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), David Kastrup, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Robert J. Chassell, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Richard Stallman, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Dan Nicolaescu, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Dan Nicolaescu, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/23