<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED NOTABUG - High RAM usage ( around 300mb for 10 mins and drop to 150-200 mb)" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=120154#c14">Comment # 14</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED NOTABUG - High RAM usage ( around 300mb for 10 mins and drop to 150-200 mb)" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=120154">bug 120154</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:mikekaganski@hotmail.com" title="Mike Kaganski <mikekaganski@hotmail.com>"> Mike Kaganski</a> <pre>We should never consider reports like "I monitor memory consumption, and in new version it's higher than on an older version" (or "it peaks then lowers after while"). When looking at memory-related problems, the only ones that should be considered are those that result in crashes, or at least steadily growing memory consumption without releasing (leading to out-of-memory condition, indicating possible memory leak). Change in memory usage pattern like described here *might* be e.g. because of changed caching (used at load time, and released after a timeout) - say, loading images, then off-loading them, which would not require to reload them on recalc; or many other things. And of course, it is best to be consistent. The version shown in the bug "Version" field is 6.1.1.2, so it seems that that version was "problematic"; then <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=120154#c3">comment 3</a> tells that 6.1.3 does not have the problem - "fixed"?; then <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=120154#c4">comment 4</a> tells that 6.1.2 had this "problem" - so the "fix" was between 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 - but 6.2 is "better" than 6.1.2?; then <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=120154#c11">comment 11</a> confirms *something* in 6.3.2.2...</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>