Ethereal-users: RE: [Ethereal-users] Large memory footprint

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

From: Chris Robertson <Chris.Robertson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:11:12 -0700
Bingo, and there is also a noticable difference in the speed of the
application (say 10%)...

Locally I connect to the local display (ie :0), remotely I connect to
<hostname>:0.  Same OS builds on both boxes (both standard Redhat 7.2
installs), so the same version of X, GTK, etc.  Both systems were running
the latest verion of Ethereal(0.9.3).  One of the systems was a Dell
dual-processor P-III 500, 256MB RAM, the other was a BYO (build-your-own)
Athlon 1800+ (ie 1700Mhz) with 512MB.  

Before anyone gets too carried away with this I'd like to see someone else
get the same results I did.  This was completely ad hoc on my part with
personal machine I got one of our developers to bring in (the Athlon) and I
threw Redhat on.  If you want I'll try to replicate this behavior again and
if I can't I'll assume it was an oddity about how those two machines
interacted (the Athlon specifically).

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guy Harris [mailto:guy@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 1:48 PM
> To: Chris Robertson
> Cc: 'ethereal-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Re: [Ethereal-users] Large memory footprint
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:01:55PM -0700, Chris Robertson wrote:
> > That's the amount of memory allocated to the Ethereal 
> process itself.
> > Depending on the system the X server would have 10-20MB (I 
> think it may have
> > hit 60MB with the largest files) allocated seperately, note 
> the amount of
> > memory allocated to X doesn't change drastically when 
> running Ethereal
> > locally or remotely with the large capture files.  
> 
> > So I would see a 300MB (600MB if local) process for Ethereal
> 
> Wait.
> 
> So the amount of virtual address space *Ethereal* has changes by a
> factor of two merely by changing the X server to which XLib connects?
> 
> That's *very* bizarre.
> 
> Does it make a difference whether, when running locally, you 
> connect to
> the local display or to "{hostname}:0.0"?  I.e., is this a
> local-connection vs. TCP issue, or is it that the two X servers behave
> differently?
> 
> Is the remote machine running the same OS as your workstation, on the
> same type of processor?  Are they running the same versions of GTK+,
> GLib, and the X client libraries?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ethereal-users mailing list
> Ethereal-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-users
>