Unaccounted for Memory is too big and lead to Native Memory Issuse.

Question

In our server, after running 1 month, Unaccounted memory will increase up to 500m or higher. And the native memory will be big. So it lead to OOM. Below are one sample:
j2eeapp:jhf1wl101:root > jrcmd 27398 print_memusage
27398:
[JRockit] memtrace is collecting data...
[JRockit] *** 19th memory utilization report
(all numbers are in kbytes)
Total mapped ;;;;;;;5100644
; Total in-use ;;;;;;4038952
;; executable ;;;;; 75968
;;; java code ;;;; 23680; 31.2%
;;;; used ;;; 21833; 92.2%
;; shared modules (exec+ro+rw) ;;;;; 4858
;; guards ;;;;; 5928
;; readonly ;;;;; 0
;; rw-memory ;;;;;3986664
;;; Java-heap ;;;;3145728; 78.9%
;;; Stacks ;;;; 126050; 3.2%
;;; Native-memory ;;;; 714885; 17.9%
;;;; java-heap-overhead ;;; 99596
;;;; codegen memory ;;; 1088
;;;; classes ;;; 166656; 23.3%
;;;;; method bytecode ;; 13743
;;;;; method structs ;; 21987 (#281446)
;;;;; constantpool ;; 72105
;;;;; classblock ;; 7711
;;;;; class ;; 11900 (#21166)
;;;;; other classdata ;; 22950
;;;;; overhead ;; 114
;;;; threads ;;; 960; 0.1%
;;;; malloc:ed memory ;;; 81024; 11.3%
;;;;; codeinfo ;; 4815
;;;;; codeinfotrees ;; 2614
;;;;; exceptiontables ;; 1790
;;;;; metainfo/livemaptable ;; 24519
;;;;; codeblock structs ;; 20
;;;;; constants ;; 33
;;;;; livemap global tables ;; 8684
;;;;; callprof cache ;; 0
;;;;; paraminfo ;; 255 (#2929)
;;;;; strings ;; 24040 (#345745)
;;;;; strings(jstring) ;; 0
;;;;; typegraph ;; 10132
;;;;; interface implementor list ;; 260
;;;;; thread contexts ;; 598
;;;;; jar/zip memory ;; 12204
;;;;; native handle memory ;; 486
;;;; unaccounted for memory ;;; 366520; 51.3%;4.52
---------------------!!!

Answer 1

>
"No one is perfect - not even Mac OS X. If a program manages to lock up central processes, a restart will be needed."
That first part of what you said there is indeed true.
But a modern OS is designed to keep processes separated. An application crash
SHOULD NOT
require a complete shut-down and reboot of your system. Yes, the Log-Out/Log back in process might take awhile if you have a particularly bad application crunch, because the OS has detected that something went screwy and is checking to see that the user account is healthy enough to run, and may be fixing some things in the process.
I've run all kinds of not-quite-polished software over the years since my adoption of OS X, and no matter how badly some of it performed nothing ever required me to reboot my system to restore operating health. Now, that's not to say I don't run system maintenance utilities which, after performing their routines, suggest or require a shutdown restart. I usually only do this if I've decided to delete the offending application from my system. (Sidebar: How diligent are you about maintaining the general health of your system through the regular practice of running preventative maintenance routines? Ramon may be along shortly to lay the boiler-plate on you about this :))
Does Photoshop dig its hooks so deeply into the root level of the OS that it could cause the kind of problems you've had? I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that it's possible. And I'd suggest that, if wonky Photoshop behavior can be so bad that it
requires
the user to restart in order to regain operational health, then something is VERY wrong. And I'd go even further out on a limb to guess that this is a fault in Adobe's Photoshop coding, and not in Apple's OS coding.