On 11/13/2012 01:05 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Yasha Karant wrote:
>
>> Right now, my quad core SL 6x X86-64 workstation is not responding very
>> well; a quick look at top reveals:
>>
>> Tasks: 181 total, 2 running, 178 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
>> Cpu(s): 41.1%us, 7.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 51.3%id, 0.4%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
>> 0.0%st
>> Mem: 8196468k total, 8002116k used, 194352k free, 9344k buffers
>> Swap: 2048252k total, 1753152k used, 295100k free, 543572k cached
>>
>> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
>>
>> 3417 ykarant 20 0 1679m 738m 8752 S 122.2 9.2 9239:30
>> plugin-containe
>> 3342 ykarant 20 0 2995m 2.2g 18m R 94.9 28.2 8309:43 firefox
>>
>> 2051 root 20 0 4448m 3.1g 9440 S 1.8 39.6 443:40.39 Xorg
>>
>> 2793 ykarant 9 -11 559m 3028 1860 S 1.8 0.0 20:04.64 pulseaudio
>>
>> 3113 ykarant 20 0 321m 6904 5292 S 1.8 0.1 211:10.01 gkrellm
>>
>> 18994 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 1.8 0.0 0:00.05 kworker/2:3
>>
>> 19318 ykarant 20 0 15136 1140 812 R 1.8 0.0 0:00.04 top
>>
>> 31800 ykarant 20 0 1247m 58m 952 S 1.8 0.7 68:45.24 java
>>
>> 1 root 20 0 19448 872 660 S 0.0 0.0 0:04.12 init
>>
>> 2 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:01.81 kthreadd
>>
>> 3 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:06.58
>> ksoftirqd/0
>> 5 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.03
>> kworker/u:0
>> 6 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00
>> migration/0
>> 7 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.26 watchdog/0
>>
>> 8 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00
>> migration/1
>> 10 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:09.72
>> ksoftirqd/1
>> 12 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.44 watchdog/1
>>
>> Note that from above:
>>
>> 3417 ykarant 20 0 1679m 738m 8752 S 122.2 9.2 9239:30
>> plugin-containe
>> 3342 ykarant 20 0 2995m 2.2g 18m R 94.9 28.2 8309:43 firefox
>>
>>
>> My institution requires the use of Adobe flash (as well as java), and
>> thus it seems that plugin-container is being used. Is there an
>> alternative approach? The above seems to me a total waste of machine
>> resources.
>>
>> Yasha Karant
>>
>
> Are you running the 32 or 64 bit version of Flash? Are you running only
> versions from SL or from someplace else?
>
> -Connie Sieh
When there are security upgrades/fixes from the originating application
provider (e.g., Mozilla, Adobe, etc.), the Security Office at my
university requires us to use the latest production version of the
application. If SL can establish in a document (e.g., a URL) that the
SL distribution version meets these same security issues, and can do so
each time the originating provider releases a new production version
(major or minor release), then I can use the version from SL. For this
reason, I currently am using:
firefox 16.0.2
firefox-bin: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV),
dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9, stripped
libflashplayer.so: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, version 1
(SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped
firefox reports under add-ons plugins: Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202
At the most recent upgrade of flash, Adobe reported:
NOTE: Adobe Flash Player 11.2 will be the last version to target Linux
as a supported platform. Adobe will continue to provide security
backports to Flash Player 11.2 for Linux.
firefox has not complained that this flash .so needs to be upgraded --
does it?
What happens now that 11.2 is the last flash player to be released for
Linux and flash content continues to change? Will there be another
reverse-engineered flash plugin? Will the ndis MS Windows "wrapper"
approach be required?
Note that I use the internal upgrade/update mechanism within firefox;
that is, I su to root, as root invoke firefox from a terminal
application, and then within firefox the upgrade proceeds, sometimes as
a partial update, sometimes (when the partial update fails), firefox
initiates a full update download. But, I do not myself download any
tar.gz/tar.bz, .rpm, or other files.
Base OS is SL6.3 X86-64 with IA-32 support in libraries, etc.--
Yasha Karant
|
