On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Jason McCarty wrote:
> > This would make a negative number of memory usage shortly after
> > starting the X server :)
>
> Doh! Wouldn't that be cool though :)
ja :) Start many X Servers to get unlimited amounts of memory for free!
> > > That doesn't mea
On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 17:44, Pigeon wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 01:19:14PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 07:37, Pigeon wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 03:03:10AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 21:42, Pigeon wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Jan 25, 20
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 01:19:14PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 07:37, Pigeon wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 03:03:10AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 21:42, Pigeon wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 12:20:56AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > > >
Hans Wilmer wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 05:18:46PM -0500, Jason McCarty wrote:
>
> > > Well, it does :) What is the difference between 'cached' and
> > > 'buffers'? I wanted to know that since long, but never found out.
> >
> > Well, after digging through the kernel sources (such fun!), I th
On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 07:37, Pigeon wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 03:03:10AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 21:42, Pigeon wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 12:20:56AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 10:21:12PM +, Pigeon wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 03:03:10AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 21:42, Pigeon wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 12:20:56AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 10:21:12PM +, Pigeon wrote:
> [snip]
> > Now, I have a UDMA66 HD, which on buffered disk read
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 05:18:46PM -0500, Jason McCarty wrote:
> > Well, it does :) What is the difference between 'cached' and
> > 'buffers'? I wanted to know that since long, but never found out.
>
> Well, after digging through the kernel sources (such fun!), I think I
> figured that out. "cach
On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 21:42, Pigeon wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 12:20:56AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 10:21:12PM +, Pigeon wrote:
[snip]
> Now, I have a UDMA66 HD, which on buffered disk reads in hdparm -t
> gives rates of about 28Mb/s, both with the onboard VIA
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 12:20:56AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 10:21:12PM +, Pigeon wrote:
> > On a sort of related point... writing a CD (at 28x), top shows 80-85%
> > system CPU usage. That's with an Athlon 1800XP (1.53GHz). Feeling the
> > heatsink, however, it's run
Hans Wilmer said:
> It almost looks as if the X server had a serious memory leak. Is there an
> explanation for its enormous memory allocation?
most of it is due to the video memory on your card, X includes that in
the "memory usage". Another is memory leaks depending on what you
run. Much of th
Hans Wilmer wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 12:27:08AM -0500, Jason McCarty wrote:
>
> > Hope this interests somebody besides myself ;)
>
> Well, it does :) What is the difference between 'cached' and
> 'buffers'? I wanted to know that since long, but never found out.
Well, after digging throug
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 12:27:08AM -0500, Jason McCarty wrote:
> Hope this interests somebody besides myself ;)
Well, it does :) What is the difference between 'cached' and
'buffers'? I wanted to know that since long, but never found out.
What wonders me it the memory usage of Xfree86. It seems
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 10:21:12PM +, Pigeon wrote:
> On a sort of related point... writing a CD (at 28x), top shows 80-85%
> system CPU usage. That's with an Athlon 1800XP (1.53GHz). Feeling the
> heatsink, however, it's running as cool as it usually does. I reckon
> this must be because it's
Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 05:53:19PM -0500, Jason McCarty wrote:
> > So, I understand the output of "free" and all that, but can anyone
> > explain the behavior shown below? This after my computer has been up for
> > a couple hours, doing very little. It usually shows this behav
On a sort of related point... writing a CD (at 28x), top shows 80-85%
system CPU usage. That's with an Athlon 1800XP (1.53GHz). Feeling the
heatsink, however, it's running as cool as it usually does. I reckon
this must be because it's spending lots of time waiting on the IDE bus.
Pigeon
--
To U
> "Colin" == Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> quaternion:~$ free
>total used free sharedbuffers cached
> Mem:256104 251680 4424 0 67536 66640
> -/+ buffers/cache: 117504 138600
> Swap:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 05:53:19PM -0500, Jason McCarty wrote:
> So, I understand the output of "free" and all that, but can anyone
> explain the behavior shown below? This after my computer has been up for
> a couple hours, doing very little. It usually shows this behavior,
> especially if I've ru
So, I understand the output of "free" and all that, but can anyone
explain the behavior shown below? This after my computer has been up for
a couple hours, doing very little. It usually shows this behavior,
especially if I've run a lot of programs first. It seems like memory is
being reclaimed from
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Nils-Erik Svangård wrote:
> My system use about 95% of my 512 mb ram, but ps aux and top doesent
> show which process that eats all the memory.
Maybe the memory is used for the disk cache/cache buffers --- free and
top can display that. Afair, it's possib
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Nils-Erik Svangård wrote:
> Hi
> My system use about 95% of my 512 mb ram, but ps aux and top doesent
> show which process that eats all the memory.
What does it say when you type free?
--
.''`. Baloo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' :proud Debian admi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 07:08:54PM +0100, Michael Naumann wrote:
> of your memory, then that is no reason to worry. Your kernel
> simply uses free memory to cache the files you already read.
> This memory area can be viewed as beeing free.
If you just came from the Windos world, think of the cache
On 23 Jan 2003 16:30:56 +0100
Nils-Erik Svangård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My system use about 95% of my 512 mb ram, but ps aux and top doesent
> show which process that eats all the memory.
I'm willing to bet without looking at the output of top or free that most
of the RAM usage is by buf
This is a FAQ, regardless of distro. Run top. Type uppercase M.
This sorts by memory usage. Also look at fourth and fifth lines from
the top. This give your memory usage. The free number is the amount
of unused memory. It does not include the amount used for buffers
(fourth line, far right) o
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 06:20:22PM +0100, Charlie Imbusch wrote:
> As far as I know Linux in general tries to use a lot of your ram to
> achieve best performance. It buffers data which have already been read
> from your hdd, for the case that these data are requested again.
> I hope it's not non-se
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Nils-Erik Svangård wrote:
> My system use about 95% of my 512 mb ram, but ps aux and top doesent
> show which process that eats all the memory.
> Can anyone figure out what to do this could be a kernel issue or
> something?
It's normal. You didn't say whe
"Nils-Erik Svangård" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My system use about 95% of my 512 mb ram, but ps aux and top doesent
> show which process that eats all the memory.
> Can anyone figure out what to do this could be a kernel issue or
> something?
Linux uses unused memory for a disk cache. This is
On Thursday 23 January 2003 16:30, Nils-Erik Svangård wrote:
> Hi
> My system use about 95% of my 512 mb ram, but ps aux and top doesent
> show which process that eats all the memory.
> Can anyone figure out what to do this could be a kernel issue or
> something?
> I use kernel 2.4.21-pre1
What ma
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:30:18 +0100, Nils-Erik Svangård wrote:
> My system use about 95% of my 512 mb ram, but ps aux and top doesent
> show which process that eats all the memory. Can anyone figure out what
> to do this could be a kernel issue or something? I use kernel
> 2.4.21-pre1
As far as I
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Nils-Erik Svangård wrote:
> My system use about 95% of my 512 mb ram, but ps aux and top doesent
> show which process that eats all the memory.
>
> Can anyone figure out what to do this could be a kernel issue or
> something?
so here you've got 512mb of r
Hi
My system use about 95% of my 512 mb ram, but ps aux and top doesent
show which process that eats all the memory.
Can anyone figure out what to do this could be a kernel issue or
something?
I use kernel 2.4.21-pre1
Here is the output of ps aux
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT S
30 matches
Mail list logo
