| 1 |
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:05:18 +0200 Alan McKinnon <alan@××××××××××××××××.za> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious being a |
| 4 |
> resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single one of them is |
| 5 |
> wrong and this myth really needs to be debunked. Here's why: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I agree. I'm still using xmms so I can compare. Here are few lines |
| 8 |
from top (displaying a Mem window - 'Shift+g 3'). Both players were |
| 9 |
playing same mp3 file. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
PID %MEM VIRT SWAP RES CODE DATA SHR nFLT nDRT S PR %CPU COMMAND |
| 12 |
8810 10.9 172m 62m 109m 1620 108m 9104 779 0 S 15 0.0 X |
| 13 |
11170 9.7 308m 210m 97m 80 129m 19m 897 0 S 15 0.0 firefox-bin |
| 14 |
7750 2.0 164m 143m 20m 480 41m 11m 117 0 R 15 0.0 audacious |
| 15 |
7810 1.8 49940 30m 17m 1524 9m 5016 72 0 S 15 0.0 emacs |
| 16 |
7739 1.1 149m 138m 11m 984 59m 7816 49 0 R 15 0.0 xmms |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Although audacious eats twice more resident memory than xmms, I think |
| 19 |
it's not that bad to call it 'resource hog'. You can see real resource |
| 20 |
hogs on the first two lines. :-) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Btw, how do you guys get so little virtual memory? :-O |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Robert |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Robert Cernansky |
| 29 |
E-mail: hslists2@××××××.sk |
| 30 |
Jabber: HS@××××××.sk |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives