my memory load of javaw is 64500KB... think that is not less as before or perhaps more?
Maybe the first time you start 0.99.9, afterwards it should be around 50 MB (I have 44 MB currently). However, if you check many mesages concurrently, it will also grow up to 80 MB or higher. Also "browsing" in the web configuration (Bayesianato, Known Senders, ...) will increase it.
Nevertheless, it is definitely lower than before (at least on all my test machines for "normal" usage). In pre-0.99.9 version, it was possible that you reach 150 MB and more if Spamato ran for a few days and/or checked several hundreds of messages. Now, this will not happen any more.
I'm very happy with my ~30,000k when checking and 1,000-2,000k on idle.
To which numbers are you referring? 1-2MB is almost impossible for the javaw.exe process, as the JVM itself takes several MBs (even without any java application running). A freshly installed version of Spamato might run with about 30-40 MB without having any data in memory, checked messages, etc...
I'm referring only to TB.exe itself, javaw.exe uses ~30,000k when checking and ~2,000k on idle.
Well, ok, I still don't quite get it, but it seems that you think that the memory usage is OK, right?
That's right, no memory issue.
By the way what is it that you can't get it? I'm just checking all processes running and connected to TB and S4T for memory usage when:
1. TB is running checking, and retrieving emails
2. TB is idle, minimalise and doing nothing.
OK, I am still wondering about the relation between TB and javaw and the memory numbers. I would like to know:
OK, thanks. However, I can't believe this ;-). Are you using the default TaskManager to get these numbers? TB and javaw never have such low MBs on my machine.
'OK, thanks. However, I can't believe this ;-). Are you using the default TaskManager to get these numbers? TB and javaw never have such low MBs on my machine.'
Yes default Task Manager. Don't believe me, just have a look:
OK OK, I believe you :-). But I don't understand it. Anyway, thanks for clarification!
This may be because the Windows Task Manager only shows the amount of physical memory in use, as opposed to the total amount of virtual memory used by the processes. It could be that when the Thunderbird and Spamato processes are idle, their memory is being kicked over to the pagefile on the hard drive. This would show up as greatly reduced memory footprint in the Task Manager process list, even though the amount of virtual memory used may be much greater.
Guess you are right, but I have never seen this on my machine and that's what made me curious.