Subject: FVWM: Memory usage

From: Anthony Stevens <xwin@[161.109.180.60]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:53:30 -0500 (CDT)

I am currently running fvwm 1.x, and have heard some cool things about 
fvwm2, however I have also heardt that the memory usage is higher. I was 
wondering if someone could tell me how much higher the memory useage is? 

Thanks in advance
Anthony Stevens
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: <[email-masked]> (Charles Hines)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 11:19:46 -0400

>>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Stevens <xwin@[161.109.180.60]> writes:

Anthony> I am currently running fvwm 1.x, and have heard some cool
Anthony> things about fvwm2, however I have also heardt that the
Anthony> memory usage is higher. I was wondering if someone could tell
Anthony> me how much higher the memory useage is?

Not much actually.  On my system, I just checked, restarted fvwm,
checked, went back to fvwm2, checked again, and here's the results:

USER       PID %CPU %MEM   SZ  RSS    TTY STAT    STIME  TIME COMMAND
hines    43806  0.2  1.0  596  860  hft/1 S      Apr 15 14:06 fvwm2 -version
                          ^^^  ^^^
hines    44000  3.7  1.0  424  656  hft/1 S    11:09:55  0:01 fvwm -version
                          ^^^  ^^^
hines    44011 12.0  1.0  520  784  hft/1 S    11:10:48  0:03 fvwm2 -version
                          ^^^  ^^^

Same number of windows & icons (~40 total).

This falls in line with the last test I did, which is in the FAQ:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

8) What's the relative memory usage for the various window managers
   out there?

A: Here's a little table comparing some of them.  It was done on an
   AIX based IBM RS6000 model 355 using the same number of windows (3)
   and XSession to switch between the window managers, and I used
   'top' to show the values:

      SIZE   RES
      545K  652K fvwm2 (fvwm 2.0-pl35)
      457K  528K fvwm  (fvwm 1.24rb)
      856K  960K ctwm  (ctwm 3.2p1)
     1004K 1156K mwm   (mwm 1.2)
      543K  632K twm   (???)
      263K  328K aixwm (a simple ugly window manager included w/ aix)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I should probably run the tests again and update this table, but the
results haven't changed that much most likely.  I would like to throw
a few more entries in there.

Chuck

*******************************************************************************
Charles K. Hines <[email-masked]>
IBM Logic Synthesis developer [BooleDozer (TM)]
Martial Arts Instructor [Modern Arnis, Presas Style Filipino Martial Arts]

IBM Internal email:                        "Go back to sleep, Chuck.  You're
  [email-masked],              just havin' a nightmare--of course,
  HINESC at FISHKILL, HINESC at FSHVMFK1    we are still in Hell." Gary Larson
*******************************************************************************
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 11:49:50 -0400

----------
> This falls in line with the last test I did, which is in the FAQ:

Given, what you  say, and what the FAQ  says, don't you think it might
be a good idea to change the first paragraph of the man page?

Old wording:

     Fvwm is a window manager for X11.  It  is  a  derivative  of
     twm.  Although it was redesigned to minimize memory consump-
     tion, it is now as bloated as any other window-manager  (not
     really,  see the FAQ for a comparison).  Users searching for
     a low-memory consumption window-manager are advised to  look
     elsewhere,  possibly  to  an earlier version of fvwm (1.24r,
     for example).  Future changes are planned to  reduce  memory
     consumption again, if possible.

New wording:

     Fvwm2 is a window manager for X.  Fvwm2 is a derivative of
     twm, redesigned to minimize memory consumption, look better,
     run faster, configure easier, and be more modular.

--
Dan Espen                                    Phone: (908) 699-5570
[email-masked]
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214
Piscataway, NJ 08854
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: <[email-masked]> (Charles Hines)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 11:56:48 -0400

>>>>> "Dan" == Dan Espen <[email-masked]> writes:

Dan> Given, what you  say, and what the FAQ  says, don't you think it might
Dan> be a good idea to change the first paragraph of the man page?

Yup, probably should...

Thanks,
Chuck

---

From: Johnny Tolliver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 13:45:10 -0400 (EDT)

> hines    44011 12.0  1.0  520  784  hft/1 S    11:10:48  0:03 fvwm2 -version

To be fair, you need to add in the cost of the "optional"FvwmPager and
GoodStuff/FvwmButtons modules. For 1.24r, I see, using top: 

  PID USERNAME PRI NICE  SIZE   RES STATE     TIME   WCPU      CPU COMMAND
83558 jxt       61    0  535K  504K run       0:03   0.31%   1.59% fvwm 21797 
21797 jxt       60    0  201K  224K sleep     0:00   0.03%   0.20% FvwmPager
43405 jxt       60    0  272K  132K sleep     0:00   0.02%   0.20% GoodStuff

Using AIX's ucb-style ps, I see:

USER        PID %CPU %MEM   SZ  RSS    TTY STAT    STIME  TIME COMMAND
jxt       21797  0.0  0.0  172  228      - S    11:53:05  0:00 FvwmPager
jxt       43405  0.0  0.0  220  132      - S    11:52:47  0:00 GoodStuff
jxt       83558  0.0  0.0  384  508      - S    11:52:41  0:03 fvwm 

Anybody know why top and ps don't agree? Just what exactly are "SIZE", 
"RES", "SZ", and "RSS"?

Thanks,
Johnny Tolliver
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
([email-masked])

---

From: <[email-masked]> (Charles Hines)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 15:13:42 -0400

>>>>> "Johnny" == Johnny Tolliver <[email-masked]> writes:

>> hines    44011 12.0  1.0  520  784  hft/1 S    11:10:48  0:03 fvwm2 -version

Johnny> To be fair, you need to add in the cost of the
Johnny> "optional"FvwmPager and GoodStuff/FvwmButtons modules.

I don't agree.  I don't think that it's necessary to show them as an
answer to what was asked for the mere fact that they are optional
(note, no quotes).  I never use the FvwmButtons myself.  I do use the
pager (the only module I really use, actually), but if you're just
comparing window managers memory usage, you don't need to look at the
Pager since it only gives a visual interface to things that can be
easily bound to keys.

Now, for 1.24r you could compile it so the only pager is the external
pager module as well.  So, if 1.xx were compiled with the built in
pager then you could add the memory usage of the 2.x pager module into
the 2.x figures.  Still, it's just simpler to show the size difference
of the main fvwm2 modules.

It still takes a lot less than mwm and dtwm do, even with several
modules running and adding their amounts in.  The difference between
1.xx and 2.xx isn't that great (even with adding in the module sizes),
and I hope to be able to decrease the difference (or at least make
sure it doesn't increase any further).

Johnny> Anybody know why top and ps don't agree? Just what exactly are "SIZE",
Johnny> "RES", "SZ", and "RSS"?

>From AIX's InfoExplorer description for ps:

  SZ (-l, l)    The size in 1K-byte units of the core image of the
                process.
  SIZE (v)      Virtual size of the data section of the process (in
                1K-byte units).
  RSS (v)       Real-memory (resident set) size of the process (in
                1K-byte units).

RES isn't described, but I would assume that it is really RSS since
the values match in your example.

Chuck

---

From: michael shiplett <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 15:53:53 -0400

Shared library usage poses yet another problem in trying to compare
memory usage since, at least under Solaris, a process' size contains
the sizes of all the libraries used---regardless of whether they are
shared among other processes.

I'm content to use fvwm based solely on its features and active
development---not on whether it's less of a hog than mwm (which I
wouldn't use in any event). If I really cared about memory usage, I'll
probably run the decorationless nawm. Having said that, I do
appreciate the efforts to keep fvwm itself reasonably lean.

michael