| 1 |
On 2007-01-04, Alan McKinnon <alan@××××××××××××××××.za> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>>> Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious |
| 4 |
>>> being a resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single |
| 5 |
>>> one of them is wrong and this myth really needs to be |
| 6 |
>>> debunked. Here's why: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> I agree. I'm still using xmms so I can compare. Here are few |
| 9 |
>> lines from top (displaying a Mem window - 'Shift+g 3'). Both |
| 10 |
>> players were playing same mp3 file. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> PID %MEM VIRT SWAP RES CODE DATA SHR nFLT nDRT S PR %CPU COMMAND |
| 13 |
>> 8810 10.9 172m 62m 109m 1620 108m 9104 779 0 S 15 0.0 X |
| 14 |
>> 11170 9.7 308m 210m 97m 80 129m 19m 897 0 S 15 0.0 firefox-bin |
| 15 |
>> 7750 2.0 164m 143m 20m 480 41m 11m 117 0 R 15 0.0 audacious |
| 16 |
>> 7810 1.8 49940 30m 17m 1524 9m 5016 72 0 S 15 0.0 emacs |
| 17 |
>> 7739 1.1 149m 138m 11m 984 59m 7816 49 0 R 15 0.0 xmms |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
[I attempted un-wrap the TOP output] |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Ah, a real comparison - I don;t have xmms anymore so couldn't |
| 22 |
> do the same in my post. These numbers are interesting, |
| 23 |
> although audacious is using more resident memory, xmms is |
| 24 |
> using way much more for DATA. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> IMHO audacious is using a perfectly reasonable amount of resources, |
| 27 |
> considering what it's being asked to do - decode and play an mp3 file |
| 28 |
> which is probably about 5M or so. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Playing an mp3 file doesn't actually require much memory: |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND |
| 33 |
3608 grante 15 0 1936 748 484 S 0.7 0.0 0:00.19 mpg123 |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
All that memory is for GUI bells and whistles. The memory |
| 36 |
required to play an MP3 file is measured in KB not in MB. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> Incidentally, I just did a similar comparison on my machine between |
| 39 |
> audacious and amarok, and found that amarok consistently uses at least |
| 40 |
> 2.2 times the amount of memory that audacious does. And I've never |
| 41 |
> heard anyone call amarok a resource-hog. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Amarok is a resource-hog. ;) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
>> Although audacious eats twice more resident memory than xmms, I think |
| 46 |
>> it's not that bad to call it 'resource hog'. You can see real |
| 47 |
>> resource hogs on the first two lines. :-) |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Very true, but there is little alternative to X and Firefox. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
Grant Edwards grante Yow! RELAX!!... This |
| 53 |
at is gonna be a HEALING |
| 54 |
visi.com EXPERIENCE!! Besides, |
| 55 |
I work for DING DONGS! |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives