Skip navigation.
home | news feeds | archives | search | forums | submit news
Home

New Evolution patch reduces memory by 40-60MB

Submitted by stro on Wed, 2006-07-19 11:40. Evolution
Evolution

Philip Van Hoof wrote: "Here are the patches to get the upstream version of evolution-data-server and evolution-exchange to start using the mmap technique for loading the header and content info summary data of Evolution and tinymail.

I expect it to reduce memory usage of Evolution with approximately fourty to sixty megabytes of ram, depending on the amount of folders you have."

Read the rest

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

gains only at startup

Submitted by ebassi on Wed, 2006-07-19 12:17.

the mmap patch by philip reduces memory usage only at startup: if you use Evo for a while, memory usage is the same (evo keeps stuff around for vfolders and filtering).

Debian - Even Hell Freezes Faster. -- seen on #debian-devel

gains only at startup

Submitted by MerlinTheGreen on Thu, 2006-07-20 05:37.

Not quite.

Evo will use lot of memory if it can be spared but the operating system is able to jettison it back into the file system without consuming swap when things get tight.

This probably means evo will interact differently with the 'swapiness' tuneable.

I'm not referring to

Submitted by ebassi on Fri, 2006-07-21 19:12.

I'm not referring to that.

The mmap patch affects how the memory is used when retrieving the on-disk representation of a physical folder. vfolders and search folders are another beast entirely, and are not affected by the mmap patch. so,if you have a few folders and many vfolders there won't be a real gain; if you have many folders, and the on-disk representation does not change often (no filters, you move you mail by hand every once in a while) you'll have some improvements.

Debian - Even Hell Freezes Faster. -- seen on #debian-devel

It depends on what the

Submitted by Anonymous George (not verified) on Thu, 2006-07-20 05:44.

It depends on what the memory mapping type is -- let's hope that MAP_SHARED is used, but unless it is, it seems to be that this is strictly equivalent to allocating memory (MAP_PRIVATE).

It does not show up in massif, which he seems to be using a lot, but I think that's deceiptive.

Read what he says

Submitted by hauberg on Wed, 2006-07-19 12:07.

The keyword is "expect" -- nobody knows how effective this stuff is yet. Philip seems like a smart guy, so I expect this to work wonders, but let's wait and see (or better test and see)

Sounds great!

Submitted by xeniac on Wed, 2006-07-19 12:00.

...to great, this sounds more like an utopia.
My Evolution with 300MB IMAP Mailbox eats 44MB of non-shared Memory.

I don't think that this patch really reduces my Evo to 8MB. :)

only 44! by Anonymous George (not verified)
Re: Sounds great! by Anonymous George (not verified)
Yes, with IMAP a lot of the by Anonymous George (not verified)