[gentoo-user] I want my xmms

[gentoo-user] I want my xmms

[maxim wexler]

Hi group,

mplayer has some problems that xmms doesn't.

Whenever a lot of hard-drive activity takes place on
my PC, mplayer faulters and sputters. I have to run
xmms if I want uninterrupted music. And this is a
fairly up-to-date unit with a Gig o' RAM.

If I want shuffle mode I must first open xmms, shuffle
the playlist and save it before using it in mplayer
cause shuffle mode in mplayer only plays a few tunes
over and over.

With xmms it's easy to cue up as many tunes as I like.
Haven't been able to do that in (g)mplayer.

xmms has a neat feature that lets you arrange the
playlist in the order the dir was filled allowing you
to hear your tunes in the order they were acquired.
Cause, naturally, I prefer to hear the newer tunes
more that the older ones. How do I do that with
mplayer?

mplayer *can* play wmas, so that's a plus.

Maxim

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms

[Mark M]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1231 bytes --]

On 12/29/06, maxim wexler <blissfix@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi group,
>
> mplayer has some problems that xmms doesn't.
>
> Whenever a lot of hard-drive activity takes place on
> my PC, mplayer faulters and sputters. I have to run
> xmms if I want uninterrupted music. And this is a
> fairly up-to-date unit with a Gig o' RAM.
>
> If I want shuffle mode I must first open xmms, shuffle
> the playlist and save it before using it in mplayer
> cause shuffle mode in mplayer only plays a few tunes
> over and over.
>
> With xmms it's easy to cue up as many tunes as I like.
> Haven't been able to do that in (g)mplayer.
>
> xmms has a neat feature that lets you arrange the
> playlist in the order the dir was filled allowing you
> to hear your tunes in the order they were acquired.
> Cause, naturally, I prefer to hear the newer tunes
> more that the older ones. How do I do that with
> mplayer?
>
> mplayer *can* play wmas, so that's a plus.
>
> Maxim
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> Hi,
how about media-sound/audacious ?
its a nice and lightweight player.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1668 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms

[Grant Edwards]

On 2006-12-29, Mark M <makalsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> how about media-sound/audacious ?
> its a nice and lightweight player.

Lightweight??

It's the biggest virtual memory user on my system with a
virtial set size of 58M and resident set size of 14M.  The only
thing with a slightly larger resident size is the X server.

Audacious takes three times as much memory as Apache.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Do you have exactly
                                  at               what I want in a plaid
                               visi.com            poindexter bar bat??

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms

[Mark M]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 770 bytes --]

On 12/29/06, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
>
> On 2006-12-29, Mark M <makalsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > how about media-sound/audacious ?
> > its a nice and lightweight player.
>
> Lightweight??
>
> It's the biggest virtual memory user on my system with a
> virtial set size of 58M and resident set size of 14M.  The only
> thing with a slightly larger resident size is the X server.
>
> Audacious takes three times as much memory as Apache.
>
> --
> Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Do you have
> exactly
>                                   at               what I want in a plaid
>                                visi.com            poindexter bar bat??
>
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> My bet, sorry.
Still nice one ;)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1821 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms

[Grant Edwards]

On 2006-12-29, Mark M <makalsky@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> how about media-sound/audacious ?
>>> its a nice and lightweight player.
>>
>> Lightweight??
>>
>> It's the biggest virtual memory user on my system with a
>> virtial set size of 58M and resident set size of 14M.  The only
>> thing with a slightly larger resident size is the X server.
>>
>> Audacious takes three times as much memory as Apache.

> Still nice one ;)

No argument there.  (It's what I usually use.)

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  If Robert Di Niro
                                  at               assassinates Walter Slezak,
                               visi.com            will Jodie Foster marry
                                                   Bonzo??

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 946 bytes --]

On Friday 29 December 2006 18:50, Mark M wrote:
> On 12/29/06, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
> > On 2006-12-29, Mark M <makalsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > how about media-sound/audacious ?
> > > its a nice and lightweight player.
> >
> > Lightweight??
> >
> > It's the biggest virtual memory user on my system with a
> > virtial set size of 58M and resident set size of 14M.  The only
> > thing with a slightly larger resident size is the X server.
> >
> > Audacious takes three times as much memory as Apache.

PID   USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
10124 michael   15   0  113m  30m  22m R  0.5  4.9   0:02.38 amarokapp

and that's when it's not playing anything!  When streaming the %CPU goes up to 
8.5-9.0.

I'm missing xmms too.  I hope xmms2 will eventually be developed enough to use 
as a stable package, but without the bloatware that winamp has become.

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms

[Grant Edwards]

On 2006-12-29, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> how about media-sound/audacious ?
>>>> its a nice and lightweight player.
>>>
>>> Lightweight??
>>>
>>> It's the biggest virtual memory user on my system with a
>>> virtial set size of 58M and resident set size of 14M.  The only
>>> thing with a slightly larger resident size is the X server.
>>>
>>> Audacious takes three times as much memory as Apache.
>
> PID   USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
> 10124 michael   15   0  113m  30m  22m R  0.5  4.9   0:02.38 amarokapp

Damn.  Compared to that, I guess audacious is lightweight.  I
probably need to re-calibrate my "weight-meter".

> and that's when it's not playing anything!  When streaming the
> %CPU goes up to 8.5-9.0.
>
> I'm missing xmms too.  I hope xmms2 will eventually be
> developed enough to use as a stable package, but without the
> bloatware that winamp has become.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Should I get
                                  at               locked in the PRINCICAL'S
                               visi.com            OFFICE today -- or have
                                                   a VASECTOMY??

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms

[fire-eyes]

On Friday 29 December 2006 14:42, Mick wrote:

> I'm missing xmms too.  I hope xmms2 will eventually be developed enough to
> use as a stable package, but without the bloatware that winamp has become.

xmms2 is nothing like the first version. It is a client / daemon setup really. 
Few users of xmms1 would enjoy it.
-- 
99% of politicians make the rest look bad.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms

[Ryan Crisman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 869 bytes --]

He may have meant lightweight as in easy to use.  And compared to mplayer it
is lightweight on the memory side.

On 12/29/06, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
>
> On 2006-12-29, Mark M <makalsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > how about media-sound/audacious ?
> > its a nice and lightweight player.
>
> Lightweight??
>
> It's the biggest virtual memory user on my system with a
> virtial set size of 58M and resident set size of 14M.  The only
> thing with a slightly larger resident size is the X server.
>
> Audacious takes three times as much memory as Apache.
>
> --
> Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Do you have
> exactly
>                                   at               what I want in a plaid
>                                visi.com            poindexter bar bat??
>
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


-- 
Ryan Crisman

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1942 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms

[Grant Edwards]

On 2006-12-29, Ryan Crisman <nxarmada@gmail.com> wrote:

> He may have meant lightweight as in easy to use.  And compared
> to mplayer it is lightweight on the memory side.

On my system mplayer uses about 1/3 the memory that audacious
does, but that's the non-gui version of mplayer -- I don't
think I've got a GUI for it installed.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Hey, I LIKE that
                                  at               POINT!!
                               visi.com            

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1064 bytes --]

On Friday 29 December 2006 19:23, maxim wexler wrote:
> mplayer has some problems that xmms doesn't.
[SNIP]

So why don't you just keep using xmms? Do you have any problems with it?

> mplayer *can* play wmas, so that's a plus.

Doesn't the xmms-wma plugin work for you?

$ eix -c xmms-wma
[N] media-plugins/xmms-wma [1] ((~)1.0.5): XMMS plugin to play wma
[1] (layman/zugaina)

Personally I most certainly wouldn't use the zugaina overlay through layman
since it contains a lot of packages that are also in the tree and I really
want to use the official versions of those packages. It is, however, quite
easy to manually pull xmms and the xmms media-plugins from the zugaina overlay.

E.g.:

# mkdir -p /usr/local/xmms-overlay
# rsync -rlp rsync://gentoo.zugaina.org/zugaina-portage/media-sound/xmms /usr/local/xmms-overlay/media-sound
# rsync -rlp rsync://gentoo.zugaina.org/zugaina-portage/media-plugins /usr/local/xmms-overlay
# echo 'PORTDIR_OVERLAY="${PORTDIR_OVERLAY} /usr/local/xmms-overlay"' >> /etc/make.conf

-- 
Bo Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms

[maxim wexler]

> So why don't you just keep using xmms? Do you have
> any problems with it?
> 
> > mplayer *can* play wmas, so that's a plus.
> 
> Doesn't the xmms-wma plugin work for you?

No. It just skips the wmas.
> 
> $ eix -c xmms-wma
> 
heathen@localhost ~ $ eix -c xmms-wma
[I] media-plugins/xmms-wma (1.0.5): XMMS plugin to
play wma


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms

[Michael Sullivan]

On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 10:23 -0800, maxim wexler wrote:
> Hi group,
> 
> mplayer has some problems that xmms doesn't.
> 
> Whenever a lot of hard-drive activity takes place on
> my PC, mplayer faulters and sputters. I have to run
> xmms if I want uninterrupted music. And this is a
> fairly up-to-date unit with a Gig o' RAM.
> 
> If I want shuffle mode I must first open xmms, shuffle
> the playlist and save it before using it in mplayer
> cause shuffle mode in mplayer only plays a few tunes
> over and over.
> 
> With xmms it's easy to cue up as many tunes as I like.
> Haven't been able to do that in (g)mplayer.
> 
> xmms has a neat feature that lets you arrange the
> playlist in the order the dir was filled allowing you
> to hear your tunes in the order they were acquired.
> Cause, naturally, I prefer to hear the newer tunes
> more that the older ones. How do I do that with
> mplayer?
> 
> mplayer *can* play wmas, so that's a plus.
> 
> Maxim

Will audacious not work for you?

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms

[maxim wexler]

> Will audacious not work for you?

Haven't tried yet. Fellow down the list says it's a
resource hog like mplayer.

Maxim

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms

[Daniel Barkalow]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, maxim wexler wrote:

> > Will audacious not work for you?
> 
> Haven't tried yet. Fellow down the list says it's a
> resource hog like mplayer.

I don't have xmms any more to compare against, but audacious seems to be 
almost identical to it as far as I can tell. As far as memory usage, it's 
much less than, say, firefox. It is presently at the top of my CPU usage, 
but it's still only taking 1% of the CPU, so it's hard to complain.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms

[Nelson, David (ED, PAR&D)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Barkalow [mailto:barkalow@iabervon.org]
> Sent: 30 December 2006 05:28
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms
> 
> 
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, maxim wexler wrote:
> 
> > > Will audacious not work for you?
> > 
> > Haven't tried yet. Fellow down the list says it's a
> > resource hog like mplayer.
> 
> I don't have xmms any more to compare against, but audacious 
> seems to be 
> almost identical to it as far as I can tell. As far as memory 
> usage, it's 
> much less than, say, firefox. It is presently at the top of 
> my CPU usage, 
> but it's still only taking 1% of the CPU, so it's hard to complain.
> 
> 	-Daniel
> *This .sig left intentionally blank*
> -- 
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 

I moved to amarok, I might give audacious a shot.

What about noatun for a smallish player? Not sure on it's RAM usage.
Also look at Quod Libet or Banshee which are meant to be similar in
features to amarok but lighter in terms of resource usage (or so I
hear).

David

Note: These views are my own, advice is provided with no guarantee of
success. I do not represent anyone else in any emails I send to this
list.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 03 January 2007 15:17, Nelson, David (ED, PAR&D) wrote:

> I moved to amarok, I might give audacious a shot.
>
> What about noatun for a smallish player? Not sure on it's RAM usage.
> Also look at Quod Libet or Banshee which are meant to be similar in
> features to amarok but lighter in terms of resource usage (or so I
> hear).
>
> David

David, this reply isn't directed at you. You just happen to be the most 
recent post and a convenient reply point.

Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious being a 
resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single one of them is 
wrong and this myth really needs to be debunked. Here's why:

Look at the libs it links against:
nazgul ~ # ldd `which audacious`
        linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0xffffe000)
        libaudacious.so.4 => /usr/lib/libaudacious.so.4 (0x440bf000)
        libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 (0x43c9d000)
        libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 (0x4401d000)
        libatk-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libatk-1.0.so.0 (0x47ad0000)
        libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 
(0x47a3e000)
        libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 
(0x4409c000)
        libcairo.so.2 => /usr/lib/libcairo.so.2 (0xb7ed8000)
        libgthread-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgthread-2.0.so.0 (0x480d5000)
        libpango-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpango-1.0.so.0 (0x47b29000)
        libgobject-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 (0x47a00000)
        libgmodule-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 (0x47a39000)
        libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x4f44f000)
        libglib-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0x47970000)
        libglade-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libglade-2.0.so.0 (0x440a6000)
        libxml2.so.2 => /usr/lib/libxml2.so.2 (0x4b9db000)
        libz.so.1 => /lib/libz.so.1 (0x4f560000)
        libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0x4f429000)
        libstdc++.so.6 
=> /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.1/libstdc++.so.6 (0x4f583000)
        libgcc_s.so.1 
=> /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.1/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x4f6ef000)
        libpthread.so.0 => /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 (0x4f455000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x4f306000)
        libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x4b8be000)
        libfontconfig.so.1 => /usr/lib/libfontconfig.so.1 (0x4baee000)
        libXext.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x4b9aa000)
        libXrender.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXrender.so.1 (0x4bb19000)
        libXi.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXi.so.6 (0x4bb3a000)
        libXrandr.so.2 => /usr/lib/libXrandr.so.2 (0x4bb35000)
        libXcursor.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXcursor.so.1 (0x4bb23000)
        libXfixes.so.3 => /usr/lib/libXfixes.so.3 (0x4bb2e000)
        libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 
(0x47aeb000)
        libfreetype.so.6 => /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6 (0x4f682000)
        libdirectfb-0.9.so.25 => /usr/lib/libdirectfb-0.9.so.25 
(0xb7e61000)
        libfusion-0.9.so.25 => /usr/lib/libfusion-0.9.so.25 (0xb7e5a000)
        libdirect-0.9.so.25 => /usr/lib/libdirect-0.9.so.25 (0xb7e4c000)
        libglitz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libglitz.so.1 (0x48191000)
        libpng12.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpng12.so.0 (0xb7e29000)
        librt.so.1 => /lib/tls/librt.so.1 (0x4f8a8000)
        /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x4f2e8000)
        libXau.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXau.so.6 (0x4b9a5000)
        libXdmcp.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXdmcp.so.6 (0x4f559000)

It's those libs that are using the memory, not audacious. Those are 
shared libs, meaning many other apps on the system use them and the 
total memory they consume is used by all apps that use the libs. And, 
every one of those libs (apart from libaudacious) can reasonably be 
expected to be in use already on any desktop machine running X

Here's 'free' before and after I started audacious in another session:

nazgul ~ # free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     
cached
Mem:       2076984    1844696     232288          0     246056    
1220848
-/+ buffers/cache:     377792    1699192
Swap:            0          0          0
nazgul ~ # free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     
cached
Mem:       2076984    1851528     225456          0     246060    
1222324
-/+ buffers/cache:     383144    1693840
Swap:            0          0          0

So starting audacious consumed an extra 6M of memory - that's nowhere  
 near the 240M other posters are incorrectly stating it uses.

Top shows me this for audacious while playing a song:

PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
 9077 alan      15   0 62112  16m  11m R  0.3  0.8   0:01.00 audacious

It's using 62M of VIRTUAL memory, shared with every other app that uses 
the same libs.
It uses 16M of resident memory (i.e. stuff in RAM), which is the 6M it 
used at start up, plus 10M for the song that's playing. It's a 5.5M mp3 
which needs to be decompressed so any music player will use that much.
Finally audacious is using 11M of shared memory, probably via /dev/shm - 
but that is backed by swap anyway and can be swapped out easily.

So, anyone that says audacious is a resource hog is plain flat out wrong 
and does not know how the Linux virtual memory system works. It is 
complex and almost impossible to know what is going on at any instant 
in time, but that's no excuse for people being wrong by a factor of 
500%

alan
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms

[Grant Edwards]

On 2007-01-03, Alan McKinnon <alan@linuxholdings.co.za> wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 January 2007 15:17, Nelson, David (ED, PAR&D) wrote:
>
>> I moved to amarok, I might give audacious a shot.
>>
>> What about noatun for a smallish player? Not sure on it's RAM usage.
>> Also look at Quod Libet or Banshee which are meant to be similar in
>> features to amarok but lighter in terms of resource usage (or so I
>> hear).
>>
>> David
>
> David, this reply isn't directed at you. You just happen to be the most 
> recent post and a convenient reply point.
>
> Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious being a 
> resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single one of them is 
> wrong and this myth really needs to be debunked. Here's why:
>
> Look at the libs it links against:

[...]

> It's those libs that are using the memory, not audacious. Those are
> shared libs, meaning many other apps on the system use them

That's only relevent if there are other apps running that use
those libraries. 

Even if you assume they _are_ all used by other apps, audacious
still uses huge amounts of non-shared memory:

Here's my "top" display sorted by memory usage:

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+ COMMAND     

 2743 root      15   0 56604  33m 9.9m S  0.0  2.2  10:59.72 X  
20384 grante    15   0 58696  14m 9696 R  0.0  1.0   0:00.54 audacious          
 2771 grante    15   0 32796  12m 7968 S  0.0  0.8   0:04.56 xfce4-session      
 2782 grante    15   0 31176 9784 6968 S  0.0  0.6   0:04.66 xfce4-panel        
 7195 root      18   0 20692 9200 4476 S  0.0  0.6   0:00.41 apache2            
 2784 grante    15   0 32304 9096 7076 S  0.0  0.6   0:31.95 gkrellm            
 2773 grante    15   0 30912 8876 5832 S  0.0  0.6   0:03.89 xfce-mcs-manage    
 2780 grante    18   0 13508 8352 6052 S  0.0  0.5   0:09.53 xfdesktop          
 7696 roundup   18   0 11400 7268 1464 S  0.0  0.5   0:00.41 roundup-server     
 2778 grante    15   0 12488 7148 5740 S  0.0  0.5   0:07.98 xftaskbar4         
18057 apache    17   0 20692 6672 1924 S  0.0  0.4   0:00.00 apache2            
18058 apache    20   0 20692 6672 1924 S  0.0  0.4   0:00.00 apache2            
18059 apache    19   0 20692 6672 1924 S  0.0  0.4   0:00.00 apache2            

The X server is using 56M of virtual memory with 33M resident
and 10M shared.  Audacious is using 58M of with 14M resident
and 10M shared.

> and the total memory they consume is used by all apps that use
> the libs. And, every one of those libs (apart from
> libaudacious) can reasonably be expected to be in use already
> on any desktop machine running X

Nonsense.  Audacious is using 44MB of non-shared virtual memory
on my system.  44MB out of 58MB is not shared.

> Here's 'free' before and after I started audacious in another session:
>
> nazgul ~ # free
>              total       used       free     shared    buffers     
> cached
> Mem:       2076984    1844696     232288          0     246056    
> 1220848
> -/+ buffers/cache:     377792    1699192
> Swap:            0          0          0
> nazgul ~ # free
>              total       used       free     shared    buffers     
> cached
> Mem:       2076984    1851528     225456          0     246060    
> 1222324
> -/+ buffers/cache:     383144    1693840
> Swap:            0          0          0
>
> So starting audacious consumed an extra 6M of memory - that's nowhere  
>  near the 240M other posters are incorrectly stating it uses.

I've no idea where the number 240M came from, you didn't hear
it from me.   It's about 14MB of resident (6MB reduction in
"free" memory) on my system, which makes it the second largest
memory user (second only to the X server).

> So, anyone that says audacious is a resource hog is plain flat
> out wrong

You don't think that 58M of virtual memory usage isn't a
resource hog when the X server only requires 56M and the next
largest program is 32M?  Virtual memory _is_ a resource,
though not an expensive one.

> and does not know how the Linux virtual memory system works.
> It is complex and almost impossible to know what is going on
> at any instant in time, but that's no excuse for people being
> wrong by a factor of 500%

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  All this time I've
                                  at               been VIEWING a RUSSIAN
                               visi.com            MIDGET SODOMIZE a HOUSECAT!

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms

[Hans-Werner Hilse]

Hi,

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:27:41 +0000 (UTC) Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
wrote:

> The X server is using 56M of virtual memory with 33M resident
> and 10M shared.  Audacious is using 58M of with 14M resident
> and 10M shared.

"possibly" shared, to be exact. Whether it actually _is_ shared is not
determined by ps.

> > and the total memory they consume is used by all apps that use
> > the libs. And, every one of those libs (apart from
> > libaudacious) can reasonably be expected to be in use already
> > on any desktop machine running X
> 
> Nonsense.  Audacious is using 44MB of non-shared virtual memory
> on my system.  44MB out of 58MB is not shared.

And what exactly was the nonsense?

> I've no idea where the number 240M came from, you didn't hear
> it from me.   It's about 14MB of resident (6MB reduction in
> "free" memory) on my system, which makes it the second largest
> memory user (second only to the X server).

Most probably not considering openoffice, Thunderbirg, Firefox/Opera &
Co, right? In order to have huge VSZ, you just have to mmap a big fat
file. And there you go. And what does that mean for the memory
footprint of the program? Can you now call it a "resource hog"? Most
likely not.

> > So, anyone that says audacious is a resource hog is plain flat
> > out wrong
> 
> You don't think that 58M of virtual memory usage isn't a
> resource hog when the X server only requires 56M and the next
> largest program is 32M?  Virtual memory _is_ a resource,
> though not an expensive one.

Errrm, to get back to my example above: Mmap'ing a file (and increasing
your programs VSZ) is often much more elegant than classic procedural
fseek'ing and fread'ing. Nothing, absolutely nothing makes that causing
the program to become a "resource hog". The VM subsystem will care that
exactly those parts of the file will be cached, buffered, accessed and
(if needed) copied that are used.

On the opposite, if the program was programmed to overcommit absurd
amounts of memory, mmap'ing wrong/unneeded files or even doesn't free()
correctly, then I would agree that it's likely to be a resource hog.
But your points just aren't valid by themselves for that statement here.

"Virtual Memory" is _not_ the summed up amount of RAM and Swap. It's an
abstracted memory, on kernel code layer. Also, remember that Linux has
per process page tables. So VSZ isn't expensive by any means -- up to the
point that the process itself reaches the system's limit for virtual
memory.

And what does that mean for the "memory hog" claim? Nothing, absolutely
nothing.

-hwh
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms

[Grant Edwards]

On 2007-01-03, Hans-Werner Hilse <hilse@web.de> wrote:

>> You don't think that 58M of virtual memory usage isn't a
>> resource hog when the X server only requires 56M and the next
>> largest program is 32M?  Virtual memory _is_ a resource,
>> though not an expensive one.
>
> Errrm, to get back to my example above: Mmap'ing a file (and increasing
> your programs VSZ) is often much more elegant than classic procedural
> fseek'ing and fread'ing. Nothing, absolutely nothing makes that causing
> the program to become a "resource hog". The VM subsystem will care that
> exactly those parts of the file will be cached, buffered, accessed and
> (if needed) copied that are used.

You're right.  For some reason I was thinking that that virtual
memory was taking up swap space, but it's almost certainly just
read-only pages that never hit swap at all.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Is this TERMINAL fun?
                                  at               
                               visi.com            

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms

[Robert Cernansky]

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:05:18 +0200 Alan McKinnon <alan@linuxholdings.co.za> wrote:

> Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious being a 
> resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single one of them is 
> wrong and this myth really needs to be debunked. Here's why:

I agree. I'm still using xmms so I can compare. Here are few lines
from top (displaying a Mem window - 'Shift+g 3'). Both players were
playing same mp3 file.

  PID %MEM  VIRT SWAP  RES CODE DATA  SHR nFLT nDRT S  PR %CPU COMMAND
 8810 10.9  172m  62m 109m 1620 108m 9104  779    0 S  15  0.0 X
11170  9.7  308m 210m  97m   80 129m  19m  897    0 S  15  0.0 firefox-bin
 7750  2.0  164m 143m  20m  480  41m  11m  117    0 R  15  0.0 audacious
 7810  1.8 49940  30m  17m 1524   9m 5016   72    0 S  15  0.0 emacs
 7739  1.1  149m 138m  11m  984  59m 7816   49    0 R  15  0.0 xmms

Although audacious eats twice more resident memory than xmms, I think
it's not that bad to call it 'resource hog'. You can see real resource
hogs on the first two lines. :-)

Btw, how do you guys get so little virtual memory? :-O

Robert


-- 
Robert Cernansky
E-mail: hslists2@zoznam.sk
Jabber: HS@jabber.sk

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 03 January 2007 23:43, Robert Cernansky wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:05:18 +0200 Alan McKinnon 
<alan@linuxholdings.co.za> wrote:
> > Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious
> > being a resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single one of
> > them is wrong and this myth really needs to be debunked. Here's
> > why:
>
> I agree. I'm still using xmms so I can compare. Here are few lines
> from top (displaying a Mem window - 'Shift+g 3'). Both players were
> playing same mp3 file.
>
>   PID %MEM  VIRT SWAP  RES CODE DATA  SHR nFLT nDRT S  PR %CPU
> COMMAND 8810 10.9  172m  62m 109m 1620 108m 9104  779    0 S  15  0.0
> X 11170  9.7  308m 210m  97m   80 129m  19m  897    0 S  15  0.0
> firefox-bin 7750  2.0  164m 143m  20m  480  41m  11m  117    0 R  15 
> 0.0 audacious 7810  1.8 49940  30m  17m 1524   9m 5016   72    0 S 
> 15  0.0 emacs 7739  1.1  149m 138m  11m  984  59m 7816   49    0 R 
> 15  0.0 xmms

Ah, a real comparison - I don;t have xmms anymore so couldn't do the 
same in my post. These numbers are interesting, although audacious is 
using more resident memory, xmms is using way much more for DATA.

IMHO audacious is using a perfectly reasonable amount of resources, 
considering what it's being asked to do - decode and play an mp3 file 
which is probably about 5M or so. 

Incidentally, I just did a similar comparison on my machine between 
audacious and amarok, and found that amarok consistently uses at least 
2.2 times the amount of memory that audacious does. And I've never 
heard anyone call amarok a resource-hog.

I think the problem here is that very few folk have any comprehension at 
all what that VIRT column means and how the kernel has been coded to 
deal with virtual memory and COW. For an in-depth technical handling of 
the subject, I recommend the book "Understanding the Linux Virtual 
memory Manager" as part of the Bruce Perens Open Source Series
>
> Although audacious eats twice more resident memory than xmms, I think
> it's not that bad to call it 'resource hog'. You can see real
> resource hogs on the first two lines. :-)

Hehe, I see you have a firefox that's probably a) been up for several 
days and b) is very aggressively caching everything it can lay it's 
hands on

> Btw, how do you guys get so little virtual memory? :-O

Dunno :-) Right now it's not so lean anymore, X has caused 173M virtual 
memory to be used, most of it kde-libs related stuff. The *real* 
resource hog on this machine strangely enough is kontact - memory usage 
can jump 60M when I start it up. It's probably because it needs most of 
konqueror loaded to render this other idiotic thing that corporate 
users seem to love - I believe it's called "HTML mail"....

alan
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 769 bytes --]

On Thursday 04 January 2007 01:49, Alan McKinnon <alan@linuxholdings.co.za> 
wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms':
> Incidentally, I just did a similar comparison on my machine between
> audacious and amarok, and found that amarok consistently uses at least
> 2.2 times the amount of memory that audacious does. And I've never
> heard anyone call amarok a resource-hog.

While I am a proud amaroK user, it does tend toward being resource-heavy 
and do-everything.  [But, with my "monster" system, that's what I 
like. :)]

-- 
"If there's one thing we've established over the years,
it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest
clue what's best for them in terms of package stability."
-- Gentoo Developer Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms

[Grant Edwards]

On 2007-01-04, Alan McKinnon <alan@linuxholdings.co.za> wrote:

>>> Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious
>>> being a resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single
>>> one of them is wrong and this myth really needs to be
>>> debunked. Here's why:
>>
>> I agree. I'm still using xmms so I can compare. Here are few
>> lines from top (displaying a Mem window - 'Shift+g 3'). Both
>> players were playing same mp3 file.
>>
>>   PID %MEM  VIRT SWAP  RES CODE DATA  SHR nFLT nDRT S  PR  %CPU  COMMAND 
>>   8810 10.9  172m  62m 109m 1620 108m 9104  779    0 S  15  0.0  X 
>>  11170  9.7  308m 210m  97m   80 129m  19m  897    0 S  15  0.0  firefox-bin
>>   7750  2.0  164m 143m  20m  480  41m  11m  117    0 R  15  0.0  audacious
>>   7810  1.8 49940  30m  17m 1524   9m 5016   72    0 S  15  0.0  emacs 
>>   7739  1.1  149m 138m  11m  984  59m 7816   49    0 R  15  0.0  xmms

[I attempted un-wrap the TOP output]

> Ah, a real comparison - I don;t have xmms anymore so couldn't
> do the same in my post. These numbers are interesting,
> although audacious is using more resident memory, xmms is
> using way much more for DATA.
>
> IMHO audacious is using a perfectly reasonable amount of resources, 
> considering what it's being asked to do - decode and play an mp3 file 
> which is probably about 5M or so. 

Playing an mp3 file doesn't actually require much memory:

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND           
 3608 grante    15   0  1936  748  484 S  0.7  0.0   0:00.19 mpg123 

All that memory is for GUI bells and whistles.  The memory
required to play an MP3 file is measured in KB not in MB.

> Incidentally, I just did a similar comparison on my machine between 
> audacious and amarok, and found that amarok consistently uses at least 
> 2.2 times the amount of memory that audacious does. And I've never 
> heard anyone call amarok a resource-hog.

Amarok is a resource-hog.  ;)

>> Although audacious eats twice more resident memory than xmms, I think
>> it's not that bad to call it 'resource hog'. You can see real
>> resource hogs on the first two lines. :-)

Very true, but there is little alternative to X and Firefox.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  RELAX!!... This
                                  at               is gonna be a HEALING
                               visi.com            EXPERIENCE!! Besides,
                                                   I work for DING DONGS!

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms

[maxim wexler]

> IMHO audacious is using a perfectly reasonable
> amount of resources, 
 
OP here. My original problem was that xmms wouldn't
play wmas and mplayer, which does, sputtered whenever
the hard drive was active.

Following the thread led me to audacious which I
hadn't even heard of. 

So far it's performed well and I like the xmms-like
gui that allows lots of different file manipulation
options.

Maxim

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms

[Dan]

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:43:48 +0100
Robert Cernansky <hslists2@zoznam.sk> wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:05:18 +0200 Alan McKinnon
> <alan@linuxholdings.co.za> wrote:
> 
> > Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious
> > being a resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single one of
> > them is wrong and this myth really needs to be debunked. Here's why:
> 
> I agree. I'm still using xmms so I can compare. Here are few lines
> from top (displaying a Mem window - 'Shift+g 3'). Both players were
> playing same mp3 file.
> 
>   PID %MEM  VIRT SWAP  RES CODE DATA  SHR nFLT nDRT S  PR %CPU COMMAND
>  8810 10.9  172m  62m 109m 1620 108m 9104  779    0 S  15  0.0 X
> 11170  9.7  308m 210m  97m   80 129m  19m  897    0 S  15  0.0
> firefox-bin 7750  2.0  164m 143m  20m  480  41m  11m  117    0 R  15
> 0.0 audacious 7810  1.8 49940  30m  17m 1524   9m 5016   72    0 S
> 15  0.0 emacs 7739  1.1  149m 138m  11m  984  59m 7816   49    0 R
> 15  0.0 xmms
> 
> Although audacious eats twice more resident memory than xmms, I think
> it's not that bad to call it 'resource hog'. You can see real resource
> hogs on the first two lines. :-)
> 
> Btw, how do you guys get so little virtual memory? :-O
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
thanks, nice to have some terminal ouput sent along to substantiate
this discussion!  i like the 'mem window' a lot.  top is cool...
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: I want my xmms

[Grant Edwards]

On 2007-01-04, Dan <dan@spore.ath.cx> wrote:

> thanks, nice to have some terminal ouput sent along to
> substantiate this discussion!  i like the 'mem window' a lot.
> top is cool...

VMS used to have a very cool program that would watch the
address space of a specified process.  It displayed a "live"
status in a rectangular array on a terminal with a character
for each page's status (readable, writable, dirty, swapped out,
etc.). IIRC there was an "@" that showed the page contained the
program counter.  The display updated several times per second,
and it was pretty interesting to watch long-running programs
(compiles, LaTeX runs, etc.).  I've always sort of kept an eye
out for something like that for Linux, but have never stumbled
acrosss anything...

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  .. I see TOILET
                                  at               SEATS...
                               visi.com            

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list