On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 13:54:44 +0100, Pancho wrote:

> On 24/10/2020 12:50, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 12:43:03 +0100, Pancho wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/10/2020 12:19, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 10:39:35 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Markus Robert Kessler  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about a "Raspberry A" with 256 MB (MegaByte). Under
>>>>> load this amount will be eaten up soon. That was one of the reasons
>>>>> for inventing repeated reboots.
>>>>
>>>>  Reboots to cure memory leaks ? IOW reboots as a workaround for bad
>>>> programming! That has never been acceptable in my book since times
>>>> when 256Mb was a dream as disc capacity.
>>>
>>> Yeah, back in the real world it's an optimisation problem. Is it more
>>> efficient to reboot a server or invest time debugging leaky code. Time
>>> is money.
>>
>> But seeing that the code is leaky is dead simple: just run top and look
>> at the display every so often.
>>
>>
> Yes, it is often dead simple to see that code doesn't work, however
> fixing it....

Yes, seeing that a bit of code doesn't work is simple, but realising that
it might be a memory leak, not so much unless its Java, when you get told
in no uncertain terms what happened if your program hit the size limit on
the JVM's memory allocation pool.

I'm always surprised by the number of people don't know that 'top'
exists, let alone understand what it can show you.


--
--
Martin    | martin at
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05