Oh, silly me. I just took for granted that connecting through the addon I was getting into the home assitant container. I just followed your instructions step by step. I’ll report back.

By the way, I find easier to find the process using ps than htop or top, there are not many processes on the container anyway:

```
bash-5.0# ps -ef
PID USER TIME COMMAND
1 root 0:00 s6-svscan -t0 /var/run/s6/services
32 root 0:00 s6-supervise s6-fdholderd
187 root 0:00 udevd --daemon
219 root 0:00 s6-supervise home-assistant
221 root 3h22 python3 -m homeassistant --config /config
325 root 0:00 /bin/bash
342 root 0:00 ps -ef
```

Here is the output, not sure if this errors could make the output to be wrong:

```
py-spy> Sampling process 100 times a second for 120 seconds. Press Control-C to exit.
py-spy> 1.00s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.10s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.42s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.37s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.46s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.33s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.28s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.26s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.11s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.28s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.12s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.18s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.24s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.21s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.30s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.13s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.00s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.00s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.00s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> 1.01s behind in sampling, results may be inaccurate. Try reducing the sampling rate
py-spy> Wrote flamegraph data to '/config/www/spy-0.116.0.svg'. Samples: 12000 Errors: 0
```

Here is the resulting svg:

According to the UI of the new release, they are not using as much memory…

So I guess it tries to cache all the memory it cans because, hey, it is there!