Re: i2p liberated! [Fwd: GCJ support is on the way]

[Florian Weimer]

* Thomas Zander:

> Very nice to hear actual professional (i.e. out of the lab) deployment, 
> you guys worked hard for that :)
>
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 16:42, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> A side note regarding GCJ.  I realize everyone always complains that
>> Java uses up tons of memory, and if only we had native apps it'd
>> magically allocate out of thin air ;)  Unfortunately, while the
>> overnight router test did well - the VM size did not grow during
>> operation - the virtual size is larger than with Sun's jvm:
>>
>>   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
>> 23171 i2p       16   0  535m  49m  11m S  0.0  5.7  93:58.80 router
>> 23435 i2p       18   0  263m  80m  11m S  0.0  9.2  55:48.84 java
>
> Oh, my; another top victim..
>
> The virt is always higher if you use libraries, or multiple threads, I 
> don't really know why; but it sure does not imply more ram used.
> The best example I can give is that on my laptop I had a (java) process 
> that had a virt of 1300Mb;  which is cool since I have 500Mb ram and at 
> the time I had 100Mb free as well as 150Mb swap in use.  So the whole 
> machine was using less then half of the virtual of that one process.

The VIRT column means how much address space has been mapped into the
process.  It does not tell you how much of that memory is actually in
use.  Typically, RES is more important.

> I.e. top's data should be taken with a landslide of salt.
> I could naturally say that the RES ram is lower for router :)

If you use prelinking, it should decrease even further.