Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: How to find out what/who started a certain process?

Expand Messages
  • thad_floryan
    ... Hi Ed, And let s not forget ntop [network top]: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ntop/ I m surprised there isn t a ramtop program, but there is GKrellM
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 29, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In linux@yahoogroups.com, ed <ed@...> wrote:
      > [...]
      > There's also iotop.

      Hi Ed,

      And let's not forget ntop [network top]:

      http://sourceforge.net/projects/ntop/

      I'm surprised there isn't a ramtop program, but there is GKrellM which
      is a graphical monitor of all things on the system:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GKrellM see screenshot there

      GKrellM (GNU Krell Monitors) is a computer program based on
      the GTK+ toolkit that creates a single process stack of system
      monitors. It can be used to monitor the status of CPUs, main
      memory, hard disks, network interfaces, local and remote
      mailboxes, and many other things. Plugins are available for a
      multitude of tasks, e.g. controlling the XMMS media player or a
      SETI@home client from within the stacked monitor.

      Released under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
      GKrellM is free software.

      GKrellM is the closest thing for Linux to the Process Explorer for
      Windows systems which is free (see screenshot at 1st URL below):

      http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx

      http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip

      Another good one for Windows is System Explorer which is also free:

      http://www.systemexplorer.net see screenshot there

      http://systemexplorer.net/download.php

      Thad
    • Pascal
      ... Didn t know about GKrellM, looks like a more polished version of conky. ... Nice to get tipps for windows on a Linux list! :-p Please do not take issue,
      Message 2 of 15 , Aug 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In linux@yahoogroups.com, "thad_floryan" <thad@...> wrote:

        > I'm surprised there isn't a ramtop program, but there is GKrellM which
        > is a graphical monitor of all things on the system:
        >
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GKrellM see screenshot there
        >
        > GKrellM (GNU Krell Monitors) is a computer program based on
        > the GTK+ toolkit that creates a single process stack of system
        > monitors. It can be used to monitor the status of CPUs, main
        > memory, hard disks, network interfaces, local and remote
        > mailboxes, and many other things. Plugins are available for a
        > multitude of tasks, e.g. controlling the XMMS media player or a
        > SETI@home client from within the stacked monitor.
        >
        > Released under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
        > GKrellM is free software.
        >

        Didn't know about GKrellM, looks like a more polished version of conky.

        > GKrellM is the closest thing for Linux to the Process Explorer for
        > Windows systems which is free (see screenshot at 1st URL below):
        >
        > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx
        >
        > http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip
        >
        > Another good one for Windows is System Explorer which is also free:
        >
        > http://www.systemexplorer.net see screenshot there
        >
        > http://systemexplorer.net/download.php

        Nice to get tipps for windows on a Linux list! :-p
        Please do not take issue, Thad....

        Then I have another question:

        Is there a way to find out for which processes data have been transferred from physical RAM to SWAP?

        Another one:

        In a forum thread about "correct" partitioning for a Linux system, there was some discussion on the necessity of a SWAP partition for modern computers with 4GB RAM and more. And one guy argued that having several SWAP files with each a size of maximum 2GB (instead of a SWAP partition) would increase performance as data could be read more quickly due to the limited file size. What are your thoughts about that? Does it make sense or is that rather drivel by a not-so-knowledgeable person?

        Pascal
      • ed
        ... Something like this may be what you re after: $ ps -eo user,sess,pgrp,ppid,pid,pcpu,rss,vsz,comm vsz is the amount of virtual memory, rss is the amount of
        Message 3 of 15 , Aug 1, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 05:49:31PM -0000, Pascal wrote:
          > [...]
          > Is there a way to find out for which processes data have been
          > transferred from physical RAM to SWAP?

          Something like this may be what you're after:

          $ ps -eo user,sess,pgrp,ppid,pid,pcpu,rss,vsz,comm

          vsz is the amount of virtual memory, rss is the amount of memory in RAM.
          So if RSS is smaller than VSZ then you have memory in swap.

          > Another one:
          >
          > In a forum thread about "correct" partitioning for a Linux system,
          > there was some discussion on the necessity of a SWAP partition for
          > modern computers with 4GB RAM and more. And one guy argued that having
          > several SWAP files with each a size of maximum 2GB (instead of a SWAP
          > partition) would increase performance as data could be read more
          > quickly due to the limited file size. What are your thoughts about
          > that? Does it make sense or is that rather drivel by a
          > not-so-knowledgeable person?

          Well, on a 32Bit OS there could possibly be some truth in that,
          possibly, in that addressing >4GB requires number computations outside
          of 32bit int. Otherwise, no, I can't see a benefit. Remember, the
          longest time would be spent in transferring data from disk and into RAM,
          compared to working in plain RAM, this is an eternity.

          As for two swap files, there is some benefit but only if those are
          different physical disks. Some of our systems have swap on mirrors,
          which has some benefit compared to single spinning disks.

          --
          Best regards,
          Ed http://www.s5h.net/
        • thad_floryan
          ... Hi Pascal, I haven t heard of conky before. ... No problemo! :-) A number of companies have a mix of systems with Windows typically being used by the
          Message 4 of 15 , Aug 1, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In linux@yahoogroups.com, "Pascal" <pascal.bernhard@...> wrote:
            > --- In linux@yahoogroups.com, "thad_floryan" <thad@> wrote:
            > > [...]
            > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GKrellM see screenshot there
            > > [...]
            >
            > Didn't know about GKrellM, looks like a more polished version of
            > conky.

            Hi Pascal,

            I haven't heard of 'conky' before.

            > > [...[
            > > GKrellM is the closest thing for Linux to the Process Explorer for
            > > Windows systems which is free (see screenshot at 1st URL below):
            > >
            > > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx
            > > http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip
            > > [...]
            > > http://www.systemexplorer.net see screenshot there
            > > http://systemexplorer.net/download.php
            >
            > Nice to get tipps for windows on a Linux list! :-p
            > Please do not take issue, Thad....

            No problemo! :-) A number of companies have a mix of systems with
            Windows typically being used by the execs, marketing and sales people
            and linux by the techies. I was really surprised when I started at
            Levanta (formerly Linuxcare) and noted they had more Windows systems
            than Linux systems; the Windows systems were, as I wrote above, being
            used by all the execs except the CEO and the CTO who both were using
            Linux, and all the other exec and marketing and sales people were also
            using Windows. I supported both the Linux and Windows people and the
            entire infrastructure both at HQ and at the colo center which included
            all the web servers, asterisk server, email server, printers, etc --
            essentially everything including rebuilding and upgrading the door
            access and all other security facilities. It was really a surprise to
            me to receive an early morning phone call on 31-March-2008 to come in
            and close down the company after a board meeting the day before (which
            was a Sunday) due to actions by Novell the previous week which totally
            disrupted the company's arrangements with 5 other companies.

            > Then I have another question:
            >
            > Is there a way to find out for which processes data have been
            > transferred from physical RAM to SWAP?

            Ed already replied much as I would have done.

            > Another one:
            >
            > In a forum thread about "correct" partitioning for a Linux system,
            > there was some discussion on the necessity of a SWAP partition for
            > modern computers with 4GB RAM and more. And one guy argued that
            > having several SWAP files with each a size of maximum 2GB (instead
            > of a SWAP partition) would increase performance as data could be
            > read more quickly due to the limited file size. What are your
            > thoughts about that? Does it make sense or is that rather drivel by
            > a not-so-knowledgeable person?

            Ed replied with some really good points.

            Back in the old days when disks didn't have as much capacity, it was
            common to have a small [SCSI] disk for swapping only so the main HDs
            wouldn't be having as much arm motion (which takes time and also tends
            to hasten a disk's EOL due to wear-and-tear).

            I still allocate swap space a wee bit larger than actual RAM on a
            single-disk install more out of habit than anything else.

            HOWEVER, there is a VERY important consideration for those who use
            laptops and want to hibernate or suspend: you'll need a swap space
            larger than RAM because both RAM and a lot of context (e.g., which
            programs, etc.) need to be saved there for a hibernate/suspend. I
            don't use my laptops that way but many do and I'm sure there are some
            guidelines that can be found by searching the 'Net. Here's what I
            just searched for and it found what appears to be very good advice:

            how much swap space for linux to allow hibernate or suspend

            Hmmm, I may have erred using the term "suspend [to RAM]"; "sleep"
            seems to be the situation using the swap area per glancing over the
            précis of each hit from the above search.

            Thad
          • J
            ... Yep... suspend is the S3 sleep state which is a low-power state that essentially shuts down all but the most critical components providing enough power to
            Message 5 of 15 , Aug 2, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:08 PM, thad_floryan <thad@...> wrote:

              > HOWEVER, there is a VERY important consideration for those who use
              > laptops and want to hibernate or suspend: you'll need a swap space
              > larger than RAM because both RAM and a lot of context (e.g., which
              > programs, etc.) need to be saved there for a hibernate/suspend. I
              > don't use my laptops that way but many do and I'm sure there are some
              > guidelines that can be found by searching the 'Net. Here's what I
              > just searched for and it found what appears to be very good advice:
              >
              > how much swap space for linux to allow hibernate or suspend
              >
              > Hmmm, I may have erred using the term "suspend [to RAM]"; "sleep"
              > seems to be the situation using the swap area per glancing over the
              > précis of each hit from the above search.

              Yep... suspend is the S3 sleep state which is a low-power state that
              essentially shuts down all but the most critical components providing
              enough power to keep the RAM state and be able to revive the system on
              a pre-defined event like a lid-open or RTC alarm or button press.
              AFAIK, the disk is never touched when doing an S3 sleep unless the
              system just happened to be doing a write to disk when S3 was
              initiated, but swap shouldn't come into it.

              S4, or Hibernate, writes the contents of RAM and then some to disk, as
              Thad explained. My general recommendation for laptops is 1.5xRAM...
              so a 4GB laptop would be perfectly safe with a 6GB swap partition.
              But YMMV and Use Common Sense... becuase on an 8GB Laptop, you really
              don't need 12GB of Swap, unless you want it.

              My view on swap in general is that if you are at a point where you
              need swap, you need more RAM and you need to run less stuff (or you've
              got something with a nasty memory leak).

              That said, my server type machines all have 1GB swap files just to
              provide a little buffer, though it's never hit because I don't run
              them hard enough to need disk swapping of memory pages.
            • thad_floryan
              ... Right. I have a swap area setup more out of habit (over the years) than any perceived real need. I will regularly have 20 instances of Firefox up and
              Message 6 of 15 , Aug 3, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In linux@yahoogroups.com, J <dreadpiratejeff@...> wrote:
                > [...]
                > My view on swap in general is that if you are at a point where you
                > need swap, you need more RAM and you need to run less stuff (or you've
                > got something with a nasty memory leak).
                >
                > That said, my server type machines all have 1GB swap files just to
                > provide a little buffer, though it's never hit because I don't run
                > them hard enough to need disk swapping of memory pages.

                Right. I have a swap area setup more out of habit (over the years) than
                any perceived real need. I will regularly have >20 instances of
                Firefox up and running (since I grab pages before they disappear on
                news sites) even on systems with only 4GB RAM and no problems at all;
                for the curious, I don't like tabbed browsing since it complicates
                how one backs up to the beginning, so clicking a URL while holding the
                shift key down brings up a new FF with the clicked-on URL page. It's
                fast and I see neither any inefficiencies nor swap usage.

                With a few exceptions, due to my budget most of my "new" computer
                purchases of the past 6 years have been refurbs which I quickly max
                out with RAM and HD, often upgrading the CPUs (AMD and Intel) to the
                "fastest" supported by the BIOS and motherboard, and replacing stock PSUs with newer "green" PSUs capable of higher power demands and they
                actually use less power thanks also to CPU scaling. For example, see
                this screenshot:

                http://thadlabs.com/PIX/CentOS_6.2_desktop.jpg 122kB

                noting both CPU monitors at the top are showing "1GHz" -- those scale
                up to 2.3GHz (and up to 2.6GHz on my second dc5850) when I really do
                some number crunching or compiling.

                Weirdest thing is the new PSUs must be doing something "funny" to the
                power lines because [up to a point] the more systems I power up the
                less electrical power is being charged that day (I have a Time-of-Use
                SmartMeter). I generally average 15-18kW/day usage (except on laundry
                days) and when running 4-5 computers more than usual the billable
                usage will drop to around 14kW -- I have no explanation for this and
                I'm not complaining as it must be some phasing interactions since the
                incoming power is 3-phase 240VAC which is split to single-phase 120VAC
                for all circuits except the stove, main oven, and clothes dryer which
                operate on 240VAC. Here's the power meter:

                http://thadlabs.com/PIX/Thad_TOU_power_meter.jpg 148kB

                Thad
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.