Big memory usage in debian vs ubuntu when mounting a 120 dwarfs

[godane]

So i noticed that Debian takes a ton more ram running the same 120 dwarfs then Ubuntu. Ubuntu is at 418mb but with Debian its is at 1.69gb. My guess is Debian kernel is the problem cause fuse is a kernel module and not build into kernel vmlinuz image.

here is Debian ram usage:

here is Ubuntu ram usage:

Debian kernel is 6.1.0-10-amd64 and Ubuntu kernel is 6.2.0-25-generic. I hope this helps.

[mhx]

Hi!

Am I understanding correctly that your use case is to run 120 separate dwarfs instances?

Have you accessed any files in the mounted file system images yet? Or is this just after you've mounted them?

Maybe you can elaborate on your use case and why you're running that many instances?

Depending on how big the underlying DwarFS images are and also depending on the access pattern, I'd expect each instance to use up to the configured cachesize (512 MB by default). So with 120 instances, assuming the default cache size, assuming somewhat large file system images, and assuming all of the mounts actually being accessed, I'd expect the total amount of memory to eventually exceed 512 GB (yes, half a terabyte). :)

[godane]

I'm setting up my live SSD to have videos and pdfs in modules. There are no file opened on debian or ubuntu just mounted. Also the cachesize by default is set to 32mb so it every less then default.

[mhx]

I'm setting up my live SSD to have videos and pdfs in modules.

Why?

Also, what "modules"?

[godane]

I made a fork of Tomas-M linux-live scripts. Its based on that. Modules/bundles are just what i call any squashfs/dwarfs files that are add to root (/) filesystem.

The 'why' is cause I want help Flash Drives For Freedom on the software side: https://flashdrivesforfreedom.org/

I think this filesystem could be helpful in hiding data for them cause there not likely the officials to have dwarfs.

[mhx]

I think this filesystem could be helpful in hiding data for them cause there not likely the officials to have dwarfs.

I'm not convinced that this is a good idea.

Why not just use proper encryption?

You'll even get write support and more importantly, your data is actually safe.

All that aside, why does it have to be 120 "modules" then? What's the benefit over just one?

[godane]

Its cause I'm trying to organize the media collection going into this. I don't want everything to be a blob cause that blob will have to be put into 16/32/64 gb sticks also. Its a mess as it is.

I have write support using overlayfs to save changes. I use this filesystem as my daily driver so everything is just save to changes and home folder.

2nd i think the best there going to get is Security through obscurity. Boot a liveusb with media without complicated things is the best i can do.

[mhx]

Coming back to the original issue, I don't see why the same binary would use different amounts of memory under the same circumstances. The only thing that comes to my mind right now would be different stack sizes. Would you mind running

$ ulimit -a

on both machines and posting the output?

[godane]

debian:

ubuntu:

NOTE: xubuntu hostname is cause thats what my main system hostname is when building debian.

[mhx]

Yeah, those look pretty identical to me. I still have no idea where the difference in RSS comes from.

One thing you could try is to just use the dwarfs binary from the regular tarball instead of the universal binary. Unpacking the universal binary is going to add to the memory footprint. Doing this on my machine, I see the RSS drop from 13 MB to 7 MB. I've also tried the universal binary on a Ubuntu (22.04) box and I'm seeing pretty much the same RSS as on my main machine.

[godane]

Nothing really changed with ram usage for debian 12.

Here is the kernel diff between debian and ubuntu kernels using this command: diff -aur config-6.1.0-10-amd64 config-6.2.0-24-generic
diff.txt

I think looking at the kernel config may give more insight into why this is happening.

[mhx]

Do you notice the same thing with other programs? Or other fuse drivers?

[godane]

So looks like dwarfs2 works better at memory on debian the dwarfs with fuse3. Bad news is its still 1.26gb vs getting 420mb on ubuntu with dwarfs using fuse3.

[alexmyczko]

you're using the binaries or building from source? same options? same compiler?

[godane]

i was using the static binary at the time. I moved on back to squashfs for my live os and i'm also using ubuntu. This bug from what i can remember is most likely a debian bug but not sure.

Best guess for someone testing this is to make a 100+ dwarfs images and mount them all on debian to test the ram usage. Hope this helps.

[alexmyczko]

once i have the itp done i will consider testing this.