R
Robert May
Hi,
I am trying to execute some code compiled by g++ on Linux and have
found that after some time, the program allocates a huge amount of
swap space (250MB on my machine which has 512MB physical) and (700MB
on another server with 1GB physical RAM).
I have used vmstat to trend the amount of swap and observed that the
memory is not being "thrashed" and there is simply a large amount of
data that has been swapped out. This still slows down my PC and is
therefore a big problem.
There don't appear to be any memory leaks (I've checked the run-time
performance using mpatrol), and the amount of swqp does not increase
linearly, rather it is a single large step.
The algorithm that my code executes is a clustering algorithm that
iteratively clusters a data set using an increasing number of clusters
(these are a class CCluster that I have written to implement the
algorithm) so it makes sense that over time the program would use
slightly more memory - but not the instantaneous leap that I am
observing.
Has anybody seen this sort of behaviour before? Can anybody suggest
where I should begin looking for a bug?
Cheers,
Rob
I am trying to execute some code compiled by g++ on Linux and have
found that after some time, the program allocates a huge amount of
swap space (250MB on my machine which has 512MB physical) and (700MB
on another server with 1GB physical RAM).
I have used vmstat to trend the amount of swap and observed that the
memory is not being "thrashed" and there is simply a large amount of
data that has been swapped out. This still slows down my PC and is
therefore a big problem.
There don't appear to be any memory leaks (I've checked the run-time
performance using mpatrol), and the amount of swqp does not increase
linearly, rather it is a single large step.
The algorithm that my code executes is a clustering algorithm that
iteratively clusters a data set using an increasing number of clusters
(these are a class CCluster that I have written to implement the
algorithm) so it makes sense that over time the program would use
slightly more memory - but not the instantaneous leap that I am
observing.
Has anybody seen this sort of behaviour before? Can anybody suggest
where I should begin looking for a bug?
Cheers,
Rob