update manager with high memory usage after reboot in karmic

[Jens]

Hello!

I noticed on three 9.1 systems (2 ubuntu i386, 1 xubuntu i386), all installed from an alternate-cd, that the memory usage is high after manual update recommended packages and reboot. All systems are configured with automatically security updates.

When I reboot the system (when the memory problem occurs) again, the memory usage is normal too.

When I'm not reboot the system after the manual update, the memory usage is normal.

I found some entries in the forum here:
http://www.uluga.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=8527100

Do you need more information?

Thanx for your very good job
Jens

[Brian Murray (brian-murray)]

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. This bug did not have a package associated with it, which is important for ensuring that it gets looked at by the proper developers. You can learn more about finding the right package at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/FindRightPackage. I have classified this bug as a bug in update-manager.

When reporting bugs in the future please use apport, either via the appropriate application's "Help -> Report a Problem" menu or using 'ubuntu-bug' and the name of the package affected. You can learn more about this functionality at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReportingBugs.

[Jean-Baptiste Lallement (jibel)]

Thanks for your report.

When it occurs could you please open a terminal and provide the output of the following command:
$ ps -eo pmem,pcpu,rss,vsize,args| sort -k 1 -r | head -11

It will return the top ten of the memory consumers.

[Jens (jens-bormueller)]

Ok, I've done the job on a brand new installed karmic. Have a look on the information from gnome-system-monitor (at the end of both listings).

For me this is a strong bug. It is not possible working normal after manuell systemupdates. Every time a second reboot is necessary, when the system has low memory (e.g. 256 MB). On systems with more memory the performance is reduced.

###

Direcly after the systemupdate and reboot:

%MEM %CPU RSS VSZ COMMAND
 4.2 1.8 19032 49020 /usr/bin/X :0 -br -verbose -auth /var/run/gdm/auth-for-gdm-hNXKgS/database -nolisten tcp vt7
 2.9 0.6 13080 38188 gnome-terminal
 2.6 0.3 11696 45320 gnome-panel
 2.4 0.1 10712 72076 nautilus
 1.9 0.1 8480 20792 metacity --replace
 1.8 0.0 8352 48576 nm-applet --sm-disable
 1.6 0.0 7316 32568 /usr/lib/indicator-applet/indicator-applet-session --oaf-activate-iid=OAFIID:GNOME_FastUserSwitchApplet_Factory --oaf-ior-fd=19
 1.6 0.0 7248 31936 /usr/lib/indicator-applet/indicator-applet --oaf-activate-iid=OAFIID:GNOME_IndicatorApplet_Factory --oaf-ior-fd=26
 1.5 0.0 7080 31000 /usr/lib/gnome-applets/trashapplet --oaf-activate-iid=OAFIID:GNOME_Panel_TrashApplet_Factory --oaf-ior-fd=18
 1.4 0.0 6596 94928 gnome-volume-control-applet

---
Information from gnome-system-monitor:
264,9 MiB (61,1%)

###

After next reboot (normal behavior):

%MEM %CPU RSS VSZ COMMAND
 5.5 3.5 24704 84232 nautilus
 4.6 4.3 20604 45232 gnome-panel
 3.6 3.6 16124 24360 /usr/bin/X :1 -br -verbose -auth /var/run/gdm/auth-for-gdm-lIgD6I/database -nolisten tcp
 3.3 0.7 14788 29932 python /usr/share/system-config-printer/applet.py
 2.9 2.1 12996 38056 gnome-terminal
 2.9 0.5 12872 32444 /usr/lib/indicator-applet/indicator-applet-session --oaf-activate-iid=OAFIID:GNOME_FastUserSwitchApplet_Factory --oaf-ior-fd=19
 2.7 0.9 12232 34864 nm-applet --sm-disable
 2.7 0.9 12232 28448 metacity
 2.6 0.5 11584 31364 /usr/lib/indicator-applet/indicator-applet --oaf-activate-iid=OAFIID:GNOME_IndicatorApplet_Factory --oaf-ior-fd=26
 2.5 0.4 11100 94828 gnome-volume-control-applet

---
Information from gnome-system-monitor:
157,4 MiB (36,4%)

###

Best regards
Jens

[Jens (jens-bormueller)]

Do you need more information? I've seen the bug, respectively the used memory capacity on four machines after every manually system update.

Here the summarized information about the used memory once more:

1 .Normal capicity: ~160 MB

2. After a manually system update: ~260 MB

3. After a reboot: ~160 MB

Best regards
Jens

[Jean-Baptiste Lallement (jibel)]

I'm marking this report as 'Confirmed' since you've provided enough information.

Thanks and don't hesitate to submit any new bug.

[Jens (jens-bormueller)]

This behavior wasn't appeared in 10.04 and higher.