On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Holger Parplies <wbppc AT parplies DOT de> 
wrote:

>> I am curious about this.  I recall when people first started using
>> 64-bit perl saying that memory use ballooned much more than expected
>> on some programs.   I don't know if there was a bug that has been
>> fixed or if those people just bought more RAM.
>
> ok, I wasn't aware of that. I'd be surprised, though, if we have nobody using
> 64-bit BackupPC server systems on the list!? I'm about to install a 64-bit
> system for ZFS on Linux tests ...

I'm not an expert on perl internals but every variable has to have
some sort of data structure to hold the name and reference count along
with something to deal with handling it as an integer/string/float all
at the same time.  But, even if it takes more than twice as much RAM
it is still easier to deal with 64-bit systems since the process size
can be so much larger.

> But we're back to guessing there.

Agreed, but it seems like a reasonable guess that the 10GB size
wouldn't have been mentioned unless it was a substantial portion of
what was available on the server.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester  
Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the  
endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to 
tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report. 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/