Please see attached imaged - a screenshot of
Windows Task manager.
I have a lot of MySQL and MariaDB servers installed (all
needed for application testing). It is noticeable that MariaDB
10.1 uses around twice as much as much memory as compared to
MariaDB 10.0, MySQL 5.6 and 5.7 (5 GB versus 2.5 GB in rough
numbers). Even more surprising to me as P_S is not running
with 10.1 (as I understand).
Further I have MariaDB 10.0 running virtualized in OpenSuSE
12.3 inside Virtualbox. The process for the virtual machine
use only around 10% or memory as compared to MariaDB 10.0
running natively on Windows (there is also an active VM
running Mint Linux - but MySQL is not running there
currently)
I also have a number of older MySQL servers (5.0, 5.1 and
5.5) The use much less memory. That is expected as the
configuration reserves smaller buffers.
Both MariaDB servers in Windows use the configuration
created by the installer. MySQL 5.6 adn 57 servers use the
MySQL Installer standard "developer machine" configuration.
The configuraiton of MariaDB 10 in SuSE is as shipped with the
distro (I did not check it actually).
None of the servers have been connected to since system was
restarted. System has been running for approximately 4 hours
and all servers start with Windows. The VM with SuSE has been
running for approxmately 2 hours.
In the attached image I have framed and starred my
observations.
I want to emphatize, that I don't face any problems with
this at all. I have 32 GB RAM and 4 CPUs each capable of
processing 2 parallel threads,and I can run Windows 7 with
all the servers you see (and simultaneously use the system
iinteractively for Internet browsing, playing media,
processing photos, document creation/editing and what else you
would do with a desktop system), as well as have the two VMs
(both configured with an upper resource limit of 24 GB RAM and
6 CPU threads).
The memory may be released if it is required by other
processes. I don't think it is a problem to use memory if it
is available if it will be released when it is required
elsewhere (on the opposite it was a little expensive, so it
would be a shame if it was not used at all!)
But still I find the find the MariaDB 10.1 number for
memory use so much *off* as compared to comparable servers,
that I think I should mention the observation here. IMO it
should be understood *why* it happens and next it can
be decided *if* a fix is necessary or not.
-- Peter
-- Webyog