On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 06:57:27PM +0200, Robert Manea wrote:
* Andrea Rossato (mailing_list@istitutocolli.org) wrote: [...]
12954 robert 15 0 37932 2512 1508 S 0.0 0.7 0:00.09 ./dist/build/xmobar/xmobar
well, this does not tell me much, actually... xmobar is linked to everything needed to run a haskell binary in your system, and all this stuff must be loaded.
True for the virtual memory size. Still, the question remains why does xmonad which is obviuosly also linked to "everything needed to run a haskell binary" _not_ use equally much memory?
The answer might be: because xmobar uses some really huge libraries that are not being used by/shared with any other haskell prog i use. So if I go one step further i could conclude that I'm spending a lot of precious memory for only a single application.
Just for comparision purposes:
2982 robert 15 0 5640 2436 1528 S 0.0 0.7 0:01.95 /home/robert/bin/xmonad 2981 robert 15 0 4044 984 796 S 0.0 0.3 0:00.14 dzen2
What leads you to the conclusion that xmobar is using considerably more memory than xmonad? According to the figures that you yourself post, they are using the same amount (to within a few %). Stefan