Klaus Singvogel wrote: > Victor Sudakov wrote: > > > Perhaps because the php-fpm workers were forked from the same parent > > > and so a lot of theie 'physical' RAM is actually the same RAM as each > > > other, because it's not been modified? > > > > I see your point, but ps(1) talks about real physical RAM: > > > > %mem %MEM ratio of the process's resident set size to the physical memory on the machine, expressed as a percentage. (alias pmem). > > > > If those php-fpm workers share a lot of virtual (?) memory between one > > another, shouldn't `ps` show it as such? > > You sum up this: > > < php-fpm individual 1><---- php-fpm ---- shared ----> > < php-fpm individual 2><---- php-fpm ---- shared ----> > ... > < php-fpm individual n><---- php-fpm ---- shared ----> > > You summed up with awk: indivual[1..n] + n * shared I summed up with awk the values of %mem, which are supposed to be "ratio of the process's resident set size to the physical memory", correct? In my understanding, the value of %mem should indicate how much physical memory is spent on the "individual" part of the process, otherwise the parameter is either useless or misdocumented. > > But the real memory sum is: indivual[1..n] + 1 * shared > > Do you see the difference? I see your point but still don't understand how that comes from the definition of "%mem" in the man page. -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN 2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature