OpenVZ Forum: Devel » vzmemcheck displays wrong values?

Home » Mailing lists » Devel » vzmemcheck displays wrong values?

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

vzmemcheck displays wrong values? [message #1715]

Mon, 20 February 2006 21:59

Martin Braun
Messages: 6
Registered: February 2006

Junior Member

Hi folks,

i looked at the output of vzmemcheck and realized something
wired, the allocated Memory, shown in 'free' is much lower
than shown in 'vzmemcheck'. I will look into the code if i
find time for that. Here is a sample:

http://nopaste.unixfreunde.de/show.php?id=891

so far...

--
Martin Braun

() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
/\ http://arc.pasp.de/

Report message to a moderator

Re: vzmemcheck displays wrong values? [message #1723 is a reply to message #1715]

Tue, 21 February 2006 12:29

dev
Messages: 1693
Registered: September 2005
Location: Moscow

Senior Member

> Hi folks,
>
> i looked at the output of vzmemcheck and realized something
> wired, the allocated Memory, shown in 'free' is much lower
> than shown in 'vzmemcheck'. I will look into the code if i
> find time for that. Here is a sample:
>
> http://nopaste.unixfreunde.de/show.php?id=891
vzmemcheck doesn't show free.
Can you point to the numbers in the picture which make you worry?

Thanks,
Kirill

Report message to a moderator

Re: vzmemcheck displays wrong values? [message #1724 is a reply to message #1723]

Tue, 21 February 2006 13:19

Martin Braun
Messages: 6
Registered: February 2006

Junior Member

Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> i looked at the output of vzmemcheck and realized something
>> wired, the allocated Memory, shown in 'free' is much lower
>> than shown in 'vzmemcheck'. I will look into the code if i
>> find time for that. Here is a sample:
>>
>> http://nopaste.unixfreunde.de/show.php?id=891
> vzmemcheck doesn't show free.
> Can you point to the numbers in the picture which make you worry?
>
> Thanks,
> Kirill
>
>
Okay, maybe its a misunderstanding, i worry about the following:

veid LowMem LowMem RAM MemSwap MemSwap Alloc Alloc Alloc
util commit util util commit util commit limit

3 3.35 34.01 150.99 150.99 1248.72 579.61 290.00 1057.99

so, VPS 3 has a committed allocation of 290MB (65535 Pages) and a
allocation limit of 1057MB (262140 Pages). If i look at the allocation
utilization it shows me 579MB, but according to 'free' the machine has
390MB RAM used, so am i wrong with my supposition that 'Alloc util' is
the total RAM used? Or is 'RAM util' the determining factor for the
_real_ memory consumption?

Thanks

--
Martin Braun

() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
/\ http://arc.pasp.de/

Report message to a moderator

Re: vzmemcheck displays wrong values? [message #1725 is a reply to message #1724]

Tue, 21 February 2006 14:36

dev
Messages: 1693
Registered: September 2005
Location: Moscow

Senior Member

> Okay, maybe its a misunderstanding, i worry about the following:
>
> veid LowMem LowMem RAM MemSwap MemSwap Alloc Alloc Alloc
> util commit util util commit util commit limit
>
> 3 3.35 34.01 150.99 150.99 1248.72 579.61 290.00 1057.99
>
> so, VPS 3 has a committed allocation of 290MB (65535 Pages) and a
> allocation limit of 1057MB (262140 Pages). If i look at the allocation
> utilization it shows me 579MB, but according to 'free' the machine has
> 390MB RAM used, so am i wrong with my supposition that 'Alloc util' is
> the total RAM used? Or is 'RAM util' the determining factor for the
> _real_ memory consumption?

AFAIK,
Alloc refers to virtual address space,
RAM to physical memory.
Also you should remember that host system is not listed here, but
consumes some memory as well (actually can be seen in
/proc/user_beancounters)

Kirill

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	[NET][IA64] Unaligned access in sk_run_filter
Next Topic:	[RFC][PATCH] VPIDs: Virtualization of PIDs (OpenVZ approach)

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Fri Oct 31 17:40:54 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.18439 seconds