| ▲ | brunosutic 3 hours ago | |
I tried lnav about 7-8 years ago and as a terminal junkie I really liked the features. The only breaking thing was a huge (almost bloated) memory consumption. At that time lnav basically just kept everything in memory. Does anyone did that change? | ||
| ▲ | xx_ns 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |
According to the linked homepage, the memory usage seems decent (few hundred megs for most use cases when working with a 3.3G logfile). There's a screenshot with various tasks and what the peak memory usage is. At some point you need to keep quite a large context in memory to have both decent performance and useful features (that aren't unbearably slow to use). lnav seems to land at a reasonable middle ground. | ||