High RAM usage

[geeknik]

Binary package hint: nautilus

I'm running the 64bit Ubuntu 7.10. I don't even have Nautilus open at this time, but I see it Sleeping in the System Monitor and it's using 723.3MB of RAM. When I hover over the process name with my pointer, this is what comes up: nautilus --sm-config-previx /nautilus-Ai8mRI/ --sm-client-id 117f00010100011923827400000064090002 --screen 0 --load-session /home/brian/.nautilus/saved-session-1F1IOT. My uptime is over 5 days, not sure if this matters, and I don't really know what more information you need for this, but this amount of RAM usage seems extraordinarily high.

ProblemType: Bug
Architecture: amd64
Date: Mon Oct 22 15:08:13 2007
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 7.10
ExecutablePath: /usr/bin/nautilus
NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia
Package: nautilus 1:2.20.0-0ubuntu7
PackageArchitecture: amd64
ProcCmdline: nautilus --sm-config-prefix /nautilus-Ai8mRI/ --sm-client-id 117f000101000119238327400000064090002 --screen 0 --load-session /home/brian/.nautilus/saved-session-1F1I0T
ProcCwd: /home/brian
ProcEnviron:
 PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/games
 LANG=en_US.UTF-8
 SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: nautilus
Uname: Linux master 2.6.22-14-generic #1 SMP Sun Oct 14 21:45:15 GMT 2007 x86_64 GNU/Linux

[Alejandro Cuervo (a-cuervo)]

Same Problem here.
All of the sudden Nautilus is using huge amounts of memory, Sometimes as high as 93% of the available memory. System Becomes slow and Unresponsive.

Seems to have started after updates rolled out on Oct 23 2007.

Running Gutsy 7.10 64Bit
Quad Core
4 GB RAM.
Nautilus 2.20.0 Sleeping on the system monitor using for no apparent reason 2.5GB of ram out of 3.8GB available.

[Alejandro Cuervo (a-cuervo)]

Not completely sure, but Problem seems to have started after the following update rollout:

Commit Log for Tue Oct 23 08:40:24 2007

Upgraded the following packages:
firefox (2.0.0.6+2nobinonly-0ubuntu1) to 2.0.0.8+2nobinonly-0ubuntu1
firefox-gnome-support (2.0.0.6+2nobinonly-0ubuntu1) to 2.0.0.8+2nobinonly-0ubuntu1
ghostscript (8.61.dfsg.1~svn8187-0ubuntu3) to 8.61.dfsg.1~svn8187-0ubuntu3.2
ghostscript-x (8.61.dfsg.1~svn8187-0ubuntu3) to 8.61.dfsg.1~svn8187-0ubuntu3.2
gs-common (8.61.dfsg.1~svn8187-0ubuntu3) to 8.61.dfsg.1~svn8187-0ubuntu3.2
gs-esp (8.61.dfsg.1~svn8187-0ubuntu3) to 8.61.dfsg.1~svn8187-0ubuntu3.2
gs-esp-x (8.61.dfsg.1~svn8187-0ubuntu3) to 8.61.dfsg.1~svn8187-0ubuntu3.2
libgs8 (8.61.dfsg.1~svn8187-0ubuntu3) to 8.61.dfsg.1~svn8187-0ubuntu3.2
libssl0.9.8 (0.9.8e-5ubuntu3) to 0.9.8e-5ubuntu3.1
openssl (0.9.8e-5ubuntu3) to 0.9.8e-5ubuntu3.1

[Ux64 (u-x64)]

Same problem detected too.

Nautilus 2.20.0 is using 758 megs right now.

Quad Core, 2 GB ram. Gutsy 7.10 64 bit.

[geeknik (brian-carpenter)]

My uptime is currently 14 days, 4 hours 21 minutes, and Nautilus is once again using 488.3MB of RAM. Nothing updated, nothing changed, just normal usage. If I kill the process, it respawns with normal RAM usage. (At least I found something that uses more RAM then Firefox. *grin*)

[Pedro Villavicencio (pedro)]

Thanks for the bug report. This particular bug has already been reported into our bug tracking system, but please feel free to report any further bugs you find.

[Alejandro Cuervo (a-cuervo)]

I would not call this a duplicate of bug #174809.
Bug #174809 is a memory leak that happens slowly over time.

This bug is an all-of-the-sudden spike that uses massive amounts of memory for no aparent reason. It happens almost instantly and not overtime as the bug #174809

[Pedro Villavicencio (pedro)]

According to the reporter info, the symptoms are very similar between the two reports, both of them happens during having evolution a lot of time open, sound like a dup for me, if not, someone having the issue should take the report upstream.

[Ivan Jekic (the-edge)]

Well, I posted the bug #174809, but what geeknik last said, it really does sound similar. Although I think it has something to do with previewing photo/picture files. I don't know if I'm right though.

[geeknik (brian-carpenter)]

How can my bug, #155942, which was first reported on 2007-10-22, be a duplicate of a bug that was reported 2 months later? Maybe #174809 should be marked as a duplicate of #155942. It makes no sense how you've got it marked now.