<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> I assumed it had to be something like that. Thanks for the info. Is the "Resident Memory" section also a shared measurement? It seems like a much more realistic value for each app (10's of megs). Another question: If using a shared library requires it to be loaded into ram, and that means huge ram usage as I am seeing because the modules are large, would it not be more memory efficient (I know it wastes hard disk space) to simply statically link apps instead of dynamically. Then apps wouldnt have dependency issues and they would only load the necessary routines into memory? Of course there would be redundancy in memory because each app could load the same functions, but still. Matt James Livingston wrote: <blockquote cite="mid1128614919.25414.23.camel@localhost.localdomain" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 11:37 -0400, Matt Patterson wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I was just wondering if this is a normal thing. I have a machine with 768 megs ram, but the VM numbers given by System Monitor seem outrageous. Right now in the VM column I see: firefox-bin 232.1 mb soffice.bin 208.8 mb nautilus 176.7 mb gnome-vfs-daemon 52.7 mb gnome-terminal 50.7 mb X 220.4 mb mozilla-thunderbird 152.2 mb vmware-vmx 317.3 </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> The VM size of an application isn't how much memory it is using, it is the size of it's address space. What this means is that the size of a shared library will be included in the VM size of every application that uses it, even though there will only be one copy in memory. On okay approximation of "how much memory is an app using" is (RSS - Shared). That isn't an exact figure, because it's hard to define exactly what is meant by "how much memory is an app using?". Cheers, James "Doc" Livingston </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>