PDA

View Full Version : SC 7.3 . . . . oink, oink, oink!



sgmlaw
2008-12-12, 11:15
Installed 7.3 this morning. This thing loves to eat resources. Between the resident app, the browser load, and java, it's consuming near 350mb of RAM. Yikes. The app runs considerably slower, too. And this is on an Athlon 64 system with a gig of RAM. It's almost like suffering with a Symantec suite. Ouch.

CatBus
2008-12-12, 11:44
Since you're including the browser and Java in the mix, I'm assuming what you're really complaining about is SqueezePlay, not SqueezeCenter.

Taking a look at the roadmap (http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/SoftwareRoadmap) you'll see that even in the released version on SqueezeCenter 7.3, SqueezePlay will still be beta. So if you want a production-quality SoftSqueeze/SqueezePlay experience, to may want to skip 7.3, because it's not gonna be there.

For those of us who don't use SqueezePlay, SC7.3 doesn't seem unusual resources-wise--maybe just a touch lighter than before.

bklaas
2008-12-12, 11:54
350MB of RAM is a far bigger footprint than should be seen with SqueezeCenter. There has to be something else going on to cause that. Maybe with a little more information we could narrow down what the problem is...

FYI, there is no java in either SqueezePlay or SqueezeCenter.

#!/ben

radish
2008-12-12, 12:01
I think he's saying that SC + Browser + SoftSqueeze = 350 mb.

Klaus
2008-12-12, 12:59
here it's working fine, but using about 100mb of memory...

sgmlaw
2008-12-12, 13:54
SC 7.3 consumes about 150mb itself, about the same as other SC7 versions.

But Firefox (3.0.4) jumps to over 130mb when the SC is opened. Close SC, and the browser load jumps back down to about 30-40mb (typical). That is new.

I do run SoftSqueeze on several client systems, but not on the server system.

Java runs around 30mb, which is about normal.

I'm not seriously complaining, as the SW is free after all. But it does eat more resources than I'd like to see.

Howard Passman
2008-12-12, 14:07
Running SC and browser way under 100mb on mine..

Is your scanner running maybe??

Howard

snarlydwarf
2008-12-12, 14:27
a bit over 100M for me, but then it's always been that, not any different than 7.2 was. Most of my bloat is a ton of plugins. I like plugins.

(The server has 2G of RAM, so 100M is nothing.)

HectorHughMunro
2008-12-12, 14:35
Overall, it's better for me. The artwork is better and the radio stations better organized. It's good to see the BBC properly dealt with but better quality Iplayer feeds aren't provided.

Overall feels less buggy. It's a worthwhile upgrade.

Moonbase
2008-12-12, 15:48
Here (Windows, just scanning):

SqueezeTray.exe 11 MB
mysqld.exe 15 MB
SqueezeCenter.exe 91 MB
scanner.exe 59 MB

totals 176 MB

firefox.exe 94 MB (only SC start page open)

Forgot any?

radish
2008-12-12, 21:28
Another thing I'm going to mention is that measuring (or even defining) memory usage is way more complex than it seems. Particularly under Windows, that value shown in Task Manager is pretty much meaningless - it includes all kinds of things like shared DLLs which can artificially inflate the number. The best advice I can give is that provided your machine is still running OK, just ignore it :)

Teus de Jong
2008-12-13, 03:02
Another thing I'm going to mention is that measuring (or even defining) memory usage is way more complex than it seems. Particularly under Windows, that value shown in Task Manager is pretty much meaningless - it includes all kinds of things like shared DLLs which can artificially inflate the number. The best advice I can give is that provided your machine is still running OK, just ignore it :)

Exactly. The memory mentioned in Task Memory is the memory allocated by Windows to a program. This does not mean the program needs that amount of memory. The amount of allocated memory also depends on the total amount of memory available and the amount of memory already used by other programs.

E.g., you will see that a program gets a lot more memory from Windows on a machine with 4GB of memory than on a machine with 2 GB.

If you really want to know how much memory a program needs, you need much more sophisticated tools.

Teus

Moonbase
2008-12-13, 05:51
Then again, SC was (is?) supposed to also run on small-footprint machinery. Not all SC servers have quad-core multi-GHz and 4 or 8 GB RAM … (Mine for instance is a quite old P4 1.8 GHz, 1 GB RAM and I can’t afford to upgrade anymore: Memory module pricing changed from about €40/GB to incredible €369/GB since it appears not to be built anymore except by Kingston.)

And I know now that I can either run SC on this machine or work. Never both because it eats all memory. Even running SqueezePlay on the same machine makes it stutter. Sigh.

pablolie
2008-12-13, 19:45
With WinVista Ultimate 64 and 8GB of memory, the whole thing is using less than 200,000k. SC 7.3 uses 145,000k of it. Not too bad, I'd say. I'll check the Linux numbers when I log into that later.

vrobin
2008-12-14, 05:31
Another thing I'm going to mention is that measuring (or even defining) memory usage is way more complex than it seems. Particularly under Windows, that value shown in Task Manager is pretty much meaningless - it includes all kinds of things like shared DLLs which can artificially inflate the number. The best advice I can give is that provided your machine is still running OK, just ignore it :)

This not just a "Windows" problem, AFAIK, it has always been very difficult to know precisely the memory used by a program. With unix, you have stack, shared code segments, not shared code segments, etc...
Looking at cat /proc/<pid>/maps can convince you of this and if it's not enough, looking at "top" sorting fields related to memory can finish you:

n: %MEM = Memory usage (RES)
o: VIRT = Virtual Image (kb)
p: SWAP = Swapped size (kb)
q: RES = Resident size (kb)
r: CODE = Code size (kb)
s: DATA = Data+Stack size (kb)
t: SHR = Shared Mem size (kb)