kerryd Posted November 23, 2009 Report Share Posted November 23, 2009 I was a v6 user and am trialing the v8 software to see if it meets my needs. After doing a few backups and a couple restores to ensure it works alright, I checked Activity Monitor and noticed the Retrospect Engine was using 332 megs real memory. I checked this before doing anything and I think it was hardly using any memory. Is this normal? It seems like an awful lot of memory is being used. Does this memory get released. Even though I have a 4 gig Macbook Pro, when I run Parallels it requires a lot of memory so something like this is really starting to press even a 4 gig machine. I guess I'm also not sure why it would use so much memory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsobel Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 On my Intel Mac Pro under MacOS 10.5.8 RetroEngine (8.1.626) uses 30.66 MB real memory (RSIZE), 15.00 MB (RPRVT) and 92.20 MB (VSIZE). Furthermore it has 15 Threads. Have you tried starting and stopping the engine to see if it still uses as much memory ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryd Posted November 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 What I've noticed is that if the engine hasn't been accessed for a backup it doesn't use much memory at all - like yours. If a backup runs the real memory usage jumps up a lot. When its over it falls back to about half of what it was using but not to what it was using say at startup (I think). I'm going to check this once again. I'll let backup run then after all is over and done with I'll see if the memory settles down. Since I run this overnight it really doesn't matter much as I have the computer shutdown at the end of the backups and restart in the morning. I guess I was just noticing this while I was setting up my scripts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhwalker Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 Doing the catalog matching, sorting, etc., against the current file list on the source is a very memory (and CPU) intensive process. And lots of input and output buffering is required to keep the data pipe filled during the backup. Russ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryd Posted November 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Yes. The processor is using a lot of power during an operation. I've noticed restores can take quite some time for their list to appear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhwalker Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 I've noticed restores can take quite some time for their list to appear. That has nothing to do with required processor power. The communication between the engine and the console is poorly designed and poorly implemented. Needs a design review and a senior programmer to step in. Russ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.