Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "455mb".
Did you mean:
55mb
2018 Dec 09
2
"wbinfo -u" considered harmful towards Winbindd...
...A bit of detective work pointed us at the “wbinfo -u” command being that culprit. As part of a systems monitoring script we ran that once a minute (now disabled) in order to see if all AD users were detected, but somehow that seems to fail sometime and also cause the Winbindd daemon to grow around 455MB per hour… the memory used is not a huge problem on the production servers (they have 256GB RAM) so we didn’t notice this at first (since we restart smbd&winbindd every morning at 7am) - but an old test server with much less RAM ran out of memory around 4:30am… :-)
This is what the process grow...
2018 Dec 09
0
"wbinfo -u" considered harmful towards Winbindd...
...> pointed us at the “wbinfo -u” command being that culprit. As part of
> a systems monitoring script we ran that once a minute (now disabled)
> in order to see if all AD users were detected, but somehow that seems
> to fail sometime and also cause the Winbindd daemon to grow around
> 455MB per hour… the memory used is not a huge problem on the
> production servers (they have 256GB RAM) so we didn’t notice this at
> first (since we restart smbd&winbindd every morning at 7am) - but an
> old test server with much less RAM ran out of memory around
> 4:30am… :-)
>
>...
2012 Apr 02
0
[LLVMdev] GSoC - Range Analysis
...LLVM passes.
> When I asked for memory usage, I meant the amount of RAM used by the
> analysis. As far as I can tell, your paper only reports the number of
> constraints, so it doesn't really tell me how much RAM the analysis
> uses.
I just measured it. For SPEC 2006 gcc it took 455MB.
> One other thing I've been wondering about is whether your analysis is
> able to find value ranges for the results of load instructions.
No. We do not do not use pointer analysis.
> Finally, do you think it would be possible in the future to use
> parallelism to improve the per...
2012 Apr 02
6
[LLVMdev] GSoC - Range Analysis
> from what I understand of the analysis, to come to its conclusions it assumes
> that there is no overflow. That doesn't make it useless for removing integer
> overflow checks: you can successively walk variables, and if you can prove that
> there is no overflow of a variable X given your analysis of previously seen
> variables, then X can safely be added to the set of