On Tue, Jan 23, 2001, brian moore wrote: > > 6:13pm up 20 min, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 > > 27 processes: 26 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped > > CPU states: 0.1% user, 0.1% system, 0.0% nice, 99.6% idle > > Mem: 517500K av, 49412K used, 468088K free, 14644K shrd, 22516K buff > > Swap: 498004K av, 0K used, 498004K free 6324K cached > > You're using 49M, roughly. Of that 49M, a bunch is the below > processes, but you're also using 22.5M for buffers and 6.3M for cache. > That's just under 30M.... add in the shared memory (which is tricky, > because it's also charged to each process using it), and the numbers are > very much believable. (Shared memory is [mostly] your dynamically > loaded libraries -- since dozens or even hundreds of processes will want > to have libc and other common libraries, the library itself is only > mapped into memory once which saves a ton of memory and even speeds up > program loading.) > > See http://www.linuxdoc.org/FAQ/Linux-FAQ/x1925.html#AEN2027
Thanks so much for the link and the explanation. This make more sense to me now. > You still have far more memory in this machine than it needs. (ie, it > is presently wasting 468M by not using it as cache or buffers since your > disk activity is not high enough to justify it.) Not exactly. There is a reason there are 512M of RAM. The machine is not doing much yet, but it will be. Testing out the Webtrends ERS last week I had it up to almost 500M used RAM. And it didn't really go down from there. That was what started to worry me. But when it happens again I will keep in mind what you said about and look more into it. Thanks for all the replies. -Ken -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: ScopusFest
