[opensuse] Huge amount usage of ram memory ( i have 2Gb and free 121 Mb )
Hi, Now is runing sys ( openSuse 10.3 amd 64 ) and Firefox. Has anybody a clue about this !???? Need info. By -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Florin wrote:
Hi, Now is runing sys ( openSuse 10.3 amd 64 ) and Firefox. Has anybody a clue about this !???? Need info.
So, what's the problem? Are you using swap? any adverse symptoms, performance problems? Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Not even "Vista" is occupying so much Ram. Yes I'm using Swap ( is free ) After reboot memory is ~ 650 Mb and 1400Mb free... if i update some package's the occupying ram growing up to 1800 Mb. No problems by now În data de Mi, 06-02-2008 la 12:18 -0800, Sloan a scris:
Florin wrote:
Hi, Now is runing sys ( openSuse 10.3 amd 64 ) and Firefox. Has anybody a clue about this !???? Need info.
So, what's the problem? Are you using swap? any adverse symptoms, performance problems?
Joe
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Florin wrote:
Not even "Vista" is occupying so much Ram.
Can't comment on vista, don't use it - but I wouldn't base anything on what vista does or doesn't do.
Yes I'm using Swap ( is free )
That's what is meant by "not using any swap space" so that's good.
After reboot memory is ~ 650 Mb and 1400Mb free... if i update some package's the occupying ram growing up to 1800 Mb.
Yes, Linux uses RAM as buffers but If a program needs RAM the kernel will give it what it needs. Unused RAM is a waste. Linux puts lazy RAM to work, it doesn't let it lay around unused.
No problems by now
Right, no problems - Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 06 February 2008, Sloan wrote:
Yes, Linux uses RAM as buffers but If a program needs RAM the kernel will give it what it needs.
Unused RAM is a waste. Linux puts lazy RAM to work, it doesn't let it lay around unused.
This may be a stupid question... but yesterday I noticed that free -m showed +/- buffers/cache free to be about 400 on my 1GB desktop. Typically I run close to 700 free even with Firefox running. So I checked if something was grabbing a lot of memory, and indeed ksysguard showed for kmail VmRss to be > 380 000. Typically kmail runs at VmRss 30 000 - 40 000. This happened after I had copied messages from a folder on one server to a folder on another. Both IMAP servers. I copied more messages, and it seemed kmail's VmRss kept on growing. It even passed 400 000. However, once I settled for "normal" use, i.e. was done with the copying, the memory use for kmail remained the same, although I would have expected the opposite, i.e. it to free this memory it needed for copying. Even 6 hours later it was still using exactly the same amount of memory. I was wondering if this is normal, and kmail would have freed some of this memory if other processes would have needed it (it no longer needed for copying -- copying was finished long ago), or whether it actually leaked this memory and failed to free it. I mean, does this VmRss correspond to actual reserved memory (like, well, malloced in C), or does it mean something else? If I am able to reproduce this, is it a bug, or am I seeing normal memory use for a process on Linux? Thanks, Tero Pesonen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Tero Pesonen wrote:
On Wednesday 06 February 2008, Sloan wrote:
Yes, Linux uses RAM as buffers but If a program needs RAM the kernel will give it what it needs.
Unused RAM is a waste. Linux puts lazy RAM to work, it doesn't let it lay around unused.
This may be a stupid question... but yesterday I noticed that free -m showed +/- buffers/cache free to be about 400 on my 1GB desktop. Typically I run close to 700 free even with Firefox running. So I checked if something was grabbing a lot of memory, and indeed ksysguard showed for kmail VmRss to be > 380 000. Typically kmail runs at VmRss 30 000 - 40 000.
This happened after I had copied messages from a folder on one server to a folder on another. Both IMAP servers. I copied more messages, and it seemed kmail's VmRss kept on growing. It even passed 400 000. However, once I settled for "normal" use, i.e. was done with the copying, the memory use for kmail remained the same, although I would have expected the opposite, i.e. it to free this memory it needed for copying. Even 6 hours later it was still using exactly the same amount of memory.
I was wondering if this is normal, and kmail would have freed some of this memory if other processes would have needed it (it no longer needed for copying -- copying was finished long ago), or whether it actually leaked this memory and failed to free it. I mean, does this VmRss correspond to actual reserved memory (like, well, malloced in C), or does it mean something else?
If I am able to reproduce this, is it a bug, or am I seeing normal memory use for a process on Linux?
Yes, it is normal for Linux. You still haven't started swapping, so there's no reason for the memory manager section of the kernel to free up buffers used by kmail reads (or even writes). Now, whether this is desirable behavior by kmail is a different question entirely. Some would say yes, some would say no. Personally, I like program which allow me to force the clearing of memory and disk caches without shutting down the app (for example, sea-monkey).
Thanks, Tero Pesonen
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 08 February 2008, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
Tero Pesonen wrote:
This may be a stupid question... but yesterday I noticed that free -m showed +/- buffers/cache free to be about 400 on my 1GB desktop. Typically I run close to 700 free even with Firefox running. So I checked if something was grabbing a lot of memory, and indeed ksysguard showed for kmail VmRss to be > 380 000. Typically kmail runs at VmRss 30 000 - 40 000.
This happened after I had copied messages from a folder on one server to a folder on another. Both IMAP servers. I copied more messages, and it seemed kmail's VmRss kept on growing. It even passed 400 000. However, once I settled for "normal" use, i.e. was done with the copying, the memory use for kmail remained the same, although I would have expected the opposite, i.e. it to free this memory it needed for copying. Even 6 hours later it was still using exactly the same amount of memory.
I was wondering if this is normal, and kmail would have freed some of this memory if other processes would have needed it (it no longer needed for copying -- copying was finished long ago), or whether it actually leaked this memory and failed to free it. I mean, does this VmRss correspond to actual reserved memory (like, well, malloced in C), or does it mean something else?
If I am able to reproduce this, is it a bug, or am I seeing normal memory use for a process on Linux?
Yes, it is normal for Linux.
You still haven't started swapping, so there's no reason for the memory manager section of the kernel to free up buffers used by kmail reads (or even writes).
Now, whether this is desirable behavior by kmail is a different question entirely. Some would say yes, some would say no. Personally, I like program which allow me to force the clearing of memory and disk caches without shutting down the app (for example, sea-monkey).
OK. thanks for the info. Tero Pesonen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 08:02 -0500, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
Tero Pesonen wrote:
On Wednesday 06 February 2008, Sloan wrote:
Yes, Linux uses RAM as buffers but If a program needs RAM the kernel will give it what it needs.
Yes, it is normal for Linux.
You still haven't started swapping, so there's no reason for the memory manager section of the kernel to free up buffers used by kmail reads (or even writes).
Now, whether this is desirable behavior by kmail is a different question entirely. Some would say yes, some would say no. Personally, I like program which allow me to force the clearing of memory and disk caches without shutting down the app (for example, sea-monkey).
But...if it still remained in memory when the time came for Beagle to index that new batch of email, that would be a good thing... And for the "green crowd", since you are clocking ALL the ram chips to keep memory alive...why waste that tiny bit of energy to save ram with no information in it? Tom in NM -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 10 February 2008 15:30:51 Tom Patton wrote:
But...if it still remained in memory when the time came for Beagle to index that new batch of email, that would be a good thing...
What you're talking about is the page cache, which is shared among programs. But that wouldn't show up as an increase in RSS for kmail
And for the "green crowd"
Don't do this, not on a technical mailing list. Anders ' -- Madness takes its toll -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 15:51 +0100, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 10 February 2008 15:30:51 Tom Patton wrote:
But...if it still remained in memory when the time came for Beagle to index that new batch of email, that would be a good thing...
What you're talking about is the page cache, which is shared among programs. But that wouldn't show up as an increase in RSS for kmail
And for the "green crowd"
Don't do this, not on a technical mailing list.
Technically, refreshing 4 gig of empty ram (as well as saving constant disk re-reads) WOULD be a green issue, but it was not intended to start a war. Rather, it illuminates a minor advantage of LINUX vs Windows. My apologies to the list... Tom
Anders ' -- Madness takes its toll
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 10 February 2008 08:00, Tom Patton wrote:
...
Technically, refreshing 4 gig of empty ram (as well as saving constant disk re-reads) WOULD be a green issue, but it was not intended to start a war. Rather, it illuminates a minor advantage of LINUX vs Windows. My apologies to the list...
The physical RAM subsystem (on the mainboard) doesn't know what memory contains "real" data what is "empty" and has no way of being told this disctinction. It refreshes all the cells periodically. Thus, this is not something which gives any advantage to one OS over another. Not, at least, for server, desktop or laptop systems. Perhaps some highly power-critical hardware such as portable audio players and cell phone have this ability, I don't know. Lastly, it seems that were the sort of selective RAM refresh you suggest then Linux would be at a power _disadvantage_ since it tries to keep as much of the RAM as possible filled with (potentially) useful data while Windows seems to try to free it up when possible.
Tom
Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 10 February 2008 17:20:05 Randall R Schulz wrote:
Lastly, it seems that were the sort of selective RAM refresh you suggest then Linux would be at a power _disadvantage_ since it tries to keep as much of the RAM as possible filled with (potentially) useful data while Windows seems to try to free it up when possible.
The point is that memory used by the OS in this way doesn't show up as being used by any one application, so it looks to me like what the OP was describing is a bug in kmail An application's memory can't be used by other applications the way the page cache can, so that memory is just gone for the rest of the system. An application that caches too aggressively without giving the user a chance to limit it can sink a system totally But then, I've seen kmail eat up all memory+swap on a system, so it could also be a memory leak, not just caching Anders -- Madness takes its toll -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 10 February 2008 08:27, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 10 February 2008 17:20:05 Randall R Schulz wrote:
Lastly, it seems that were the sort of selective RAM refresh you suggest then Linux would be at a power _disadvantage_ since it tries to keep as much of the RAM as possible filled with (potentially) useful data while Windows seems to try to free it up when possible.
The point is that memory used by the OS in this way doesn't show up as being used by any one application, so it looks to me like what the OP was describing is a bug in kmail
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought Tom was saying that if memory was not holding useful data the RAM cells that make up that unused memory need not be refreshed, thus saving some power (though it seems that it wouldn't be much). I think this would be problematic to implement, since it would be constrained by (or constrain) the organization of the chips on the DIMMs and of the row / column layout within the individual RAM chips. The extra complexity of kernel software and mainboard circuitry this entails combined with the very modest savings available all suggest to me an impractical idea.
An application's memory can't be used by other applications the way the page cache can, so that memory is just gone for the rest of the system. An application that caches too aggressively without giving the user a chance to limit it can sink a system totally
But then, I've seen kmail eat up all memory+swap on a system, so it could also be a memory leak, not just caching
I've never seen that, but I never leave KMail running after the end of a work day. And I don't usually leave it running when I'm away from the office, so that may be enough to prevent me from seeing these symptoms. Also, I make zero use of IMAP. But from time to time (not often) KMail up an dies on me. Usually the KDE crash manager kicks in, but I think I recall cases where KMail simply vanishes. These crashes seem to be at least somewhat correlated with using the Find Messages... command. KMail must manage its mailbox and index files pretty well, though, because I've never had any corruption following such crashes.
Anders
-- Madness takes its toll
Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 08:20 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Sunday 10 February 2008 08:00, Tom Patton wrote:
...
Technically, refreshing 4 gig of empty ram (as well as saving constant disk re-reads) WOULD be a green issue, but it was not intended to start a war. Rather, it illuminates a minor advantage of LINUX vs Windows. My apologies to the list...
The physical RAM subsystem (on the mainboard) doesn't know what memory contains "real" data what is "empty" and has no way of being told this disctinction. It refreshes all the cells periodically.
Thus, this is not something which gives any advantage to one OS over another. Not, at least, for server, desktop or laptop systems. Perhaps some highly power-critical hardware such as portable audio players and cell phone have this ability, I don't know.
Lastly, it seems that were the sort of selective RAM refresh you suggest then Linux would be at a power _disadvantage_ since it tries to keep as much of the RAM as possible filled with (potentially) useful data while Windows seems to try to free it up when possible.
Tom
Randall Schulz You missed my point, that if there were nothing there, and (since) the hardware refreshes it all anyway...then THAT constitutes an energy waste...so it costs nothing extra for LINUX to hang onto possibly useful information, at NO additional expense. So the "advantage" goes to LINUX, and windows WASTES energy, refreshing empty ram.
It was rather tongue-in-cheek anyway. Considering the odds of ram cache being stale, my hypotheses could easily be disproved in a long-term test comparison. Tom in NM -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 10 February 2008 09:27, Tom Patton wrote:
...
You missed my point, that if there were nothing there, and (since) the hardware refreshes it all anyway...then THAT constitutes an energy waste...so it costs nothing extra for LINUX to hang onto possibly useful information, at NO additional expense. So the "advantage" goes to LINUX, and windows WASTES energy, refreshing empty ram.
Yes. I misunderstood. And while I still think it's a tiny energy issue, it's not null. It would be interesting to know how this compares to the energy used for extra disk activity needed to refill that RAM later (as Windows' inferior algorithms require). While the main energy consumption in a hard drive is from the spindle motor, high-performance disks with fast seek times presumably consume non-negligible energy in their voice-coil disk arm actuators.
It was rather tongue-in-cheek anyway. Considering the odds of ram cache being stale, my hypotheses could easily be disproved in a long-term test comparison.
I still think these quantities are in the noise, so it would probably be difficult to get a meaningful measurement and there would be many confounding factors (ambient temperature fluctuation causing fan speed changes, e.g., or different CPU / IO balance).
Tom in NM
Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Thursday 07 February 2008 00:08:01 Tero Pesonen wrote:
On Wednesday 06 February 2008, Sloan wrote:
Yes, Linux uses RAM as buffers but If a program needs RAM the kernel will give it what it needs.
Unused RAM is a waste. Linux puts lazy RAM to work, it doesn't let it lay around unused.
This may be a stupid question... but yesterday I noticed that free -m showed +/- buffers/cache free to be about 400 on my 1GB desktop. Typically I run close to 700 free even with Firefox running. So I checked if something was grabbing a lot of memory, and indeed ksysguard showed for kmail VmRss to be > 380 000. Typically kmail runs at VmRss 30 000 - 40 000.
This happened after I had copied messages from a folder on one server to a folder on another. Both IMAP servers. I copied more messages, and it seemed kmail's VmRss kept on growing. It even passed 400 000. However, once I settled for "normal" use, i.e. was done with the copying, the memory use for kmail remained the same, although I would have expected the opposite, i.e. it to free this memory it needed for copying. Even 6 hours later it was still using exactly the same amount of memory.
I was wondering if this is normal, and kmail would have freed some of this memory if other processes would have needed it (it no longer needed for copying -- copying was finished long ago), or whether it actually leaked this memory and failed to free it. I mean, does this VmRss correspond to actual reserved memory (like, well, malloced in C), or does it mean something else?
If I am able to reproduce this, is it a bug, or am I seeing normal memory use for a process on Linux?
That definitely sounds like a bug in kmail. Its imap implementation is relatively weak compared to other programs, there are quite a few problems with it But what you're describing is not standard caching behaviour. Especially since there's no possibility to limit it in the config There are memory leaks in kmail, I run into them frequently. I would report what you've seen as a bug, if I were you (if you can reproduce it) Anders -- Madness takes its toll -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Florin wrote:
Not even "Vista" is occupying so much Ram. Yes I'm using Swap ( is free ) After reboot memory is ~ 650 Mb and 1400Mb free... if i update some package's the occupying ram growing up to 1800 Mb. No problems by now Ram needs to get used as much as possible if you want it to speed things up :-) So you just discovered an advantage of Linux :-)
--
În data de Mi, 06-02-2008 la 12:18 -0800, Sloan a scris:
Florin wrote:
Hi, Now is runing sys ( openSuse 10.3 amd 64 ) and Firefox. Has anybody a clue about this !???? Need info.
So, what's the problem? Are you using swap? any adverse symptoms, performance problems?
Joe
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 06 February 2008 12:43, Florin wrote:
Not even "Vista" is occupying so much Ram.
That's 'cause it's not as well designed as is Linux.
Yes I'm using Swap ( is free ) After reboot memory is ~ 650 Mb and 1400Mb free... if i update some package's the occupying ram growing up to 1800 Mb. No problems by now
Nor will you have any. As Joe said, Linux will pretty quickly find something to stick in all of any given machine's RAM. This in no way interferes with its ability to do what you ask of it. This is not to say that Linux is magic and makes the limits of your hardware go away, it's just that it follows the philosophy that "free memory is wasted memory." Unless you system starts to thrash, pay no attention to the memory utilization numbers. Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Randall R Schulz schrieb:
This is not to say that Linux is magic and makes the limits of your hardware go away, it's just that it follows the philosophy that "free memory is wasted memory."
I couldn't agree more. I get whole 8GB RAM full while compiling. And it's good so! ;) -- All the best, Peter J. P-N. aedon DESIGNS http://www.hochzeitsbuch.info http://www.hochzeitsbuch.selfip.com
Not even "Vista" is occupying so much Ram. Yes I'm using Swap ( is free ) After reboot memory is ~ 650 Mb and 1400Mb free... if i update some package's the occupying ram growing up to 1800 Mb. No problems by now
I think what we have here is a misunderstanding of how Linux uses RAM vs how Microsoft does it. Microsoft does not use RAM efficiently, it simply allows unused RAM to sit around idle while it swaps stuff to that well known swap file it needs. Linux uses available RAM to cache disk blocks and speed up things that take time.. like disk writes (which are cached to RAM unitl the system has time to actually write the data). Take a look at free -m For example here is mine right now........ free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 4052 3909 143 0 197 1601 -/+ buffers/cache: 2110 1942 Swap: 4102 0 4102 The used value (3909) will almost always be really close to the total value (4052). The buffers/cache value (2110) is how much RAM your apps are actually using. The cached value (1601) is the spare memory that is used for caching things like disk write blocks etc. So... you've noticed something that is good abotu Linux, not bad. :-) C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Florin wrote:
Not even "Vista" is occupying so much Ram.
That's because rather than using memory, Windows has a policy of "aggressive swapping" which means flushing buffers out to swap space to free up memory which ISN'T EVEN BEING REQUESTED. Supposedly, the reason for this was to improve system responsiveness, but it has actually turned out to be very detrimental to performance.
Yes I'm using Swap ( is free )
What he meant by "are you using swap?" is this: "Is there any swap space being consumed?"
After reboot memory is ~ 650 Mb and 1400Mb free...
This isn't windows. There's no need to reboot to solve anything other than application memory leaks, or (heaven forbid) a system lockup. By the way, running out of free memory will NOT cause your computer to crash. Running out of swap space, yes, but not RAM. Basically, if your computer has been up for any length of time, and has a substantial amount of free memory still, THAT would be sign that something is wrong (specifically, that I/O buffers are being de-allocated prematurely).
if i update some package's the occupying ram growing up to 1800 Mb.
Well, duh. ;-) You downloaded a whole bunch of stuff, and it's now being held in I/O buffers UNTIL SOME OTHER PROCESS NEEDS THAT MEMORY SPACE.
No problems by now
În data de Mi, 06-02-2008 la 12:18 -0800, Sloan a scris:
Florin wrote:
Hi, Now is runing sys ( openSuse 10.3 amd 64 ) and Firefox. Has anybody a clue about this !???? Need info.
So, what's the problem? Are you using swap? any adverse symptoms, performance problems?
Joe
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Thank you a lot, Now i understand the thing with memory... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Florin wrote:
Hi, Now is runing sys ( openSuse 10.3 amd 64 ) and Firefox. Has anybody a clue about this !???? Need info.
Amazing! We need info as well... Just a hint: Linux will use available memory for caching. Just compare the values shown by top or ps with the output of free. -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Sandy Drobic wrote:
Florin wrote:
Hi, Now is runing sys ( openSuse 10.3 amd 64 ) and Firefox. Has anybody a clue about this !???? Need info.
Amazing! We need info as well...
Not at all. I'll bet most of the used up memory are previously used buffers, which haven't been overwritten because there hasn't been any need to do so.
Just a hint: Linux will use available memory for caching. Just compare the values shown by top or ps with the output of free.
Precisely. All of his memory usage is just previously cached data. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Florin wrote:
Hi, Now is runing sys ( openSuse 10.3 amd 64 ) and Firefox. Has anybody a clue about this !????
Totally normal. Any memory not being used by a program is used as filesystem buffer space -- if any of those files are opened again, the pages (disk pages, not web pages) are already in memory. Disk page images in the buffers that aren't used again eventually get replaced by either new disk-reads, or by memory needs of programs and their dataspace.
Need info. By
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 22:14 +0200, Florin wrote:
Hi, Now is runing sys ( openSuse 10.3 amd 64 ) and Firefox. Has anybody a clue about this !???? Need info. By
I think he is not actually using, but reserving RAM for futer jobs. I always had 90% of ram 'used' whatever memory amount was installed. If you type sysinfo:/ in konqueror you will get information about memory in use and memory in caches. SDA -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (12)
-
Aaron Kulkis -
Anders Johansson -
Clayton -
DimitryASuplatov -
Florin -
Peter J. P-N -
Philippe Landau -
Randall R Schulz -
Sandy Drobic -
Sloan -
Tero Pesonen -
Tom Patton