On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 03:23:54PM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 03:08:06PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> > I'm not sure what to expect from these (i.e. what is "normal" in this
> > case?) but the VM sizes for the NFS-used rpc.statd and rpcbind here look
> > a bit too big, comp
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 03:08:06PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> I'm not sure what to expect from these (i.e. what is "normal" in this
> case?) but the VM sizes for the NFS-used rpc.statd and rpcbind here look
> a bit too big, compared to their resident sizes:
>
> 778 root 1 440 26
I'm not sure what to expect from these (i.e. what is "normal" in this
case?) but the VM sizes for the NFS-used rpc.statd and rpcbind here look
a bit too big, compared to their resident sizes:
778 root 1 440 26420K 3256K select 1 0:01 0.00%
rpcbind
891 root 1
