On Tue, 03 Feb 2009, Aneurin Price wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On 02/03/2009 05:01 AM, Avi Greenbury wrote:
> >
> > That's a design issue (I think) specific to Windows. Has to do with the
> > decision to map video card RAM into regular address space (even on
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/03/2009 05:01 AM, Avi Greenbury wrote:
>>
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> > On 02/01/2009 10:04 AM, Mirko Scurk wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >>
>> >> Could it be that 32-bit Debian can't access rest of memory?
>> >>
>> >
>> > That would only be
On 02/03/2009 05:01 AM, Avi Greenbury wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/01/2009 10:04 AM, Mirko Scurk wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Could it be that 32-bit Debian can't access rest of memory?
>>
>
> That would only be an issue if he could only see (I think) 2GB of his
> 4GB RAM.
>
Really?
The o
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/01/2009 10:04 AM, Mirko Scurk wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Could it be that 32-bit Debian can't access rest of memory?
>>
>
> That would only be an issue if he could only see (I think) 2GB of his
> 4GB RAM.
>
Really?
The only system on which I've >3Gb of ram and a 32bit OS is
On 02/02/2009 11:34 AM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:04:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 01/30/2009 09:54 PM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 02:52:34AM +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:54:34AM +, Dean Chester wrote:
If a 100%
>> Try to run `free' to get a more detailed break up (or even "cat
>> /proc/meminfo").
> Running free -g on my system returns 3. I have 4.
> Running cat /proc/meminfo returns 4030668KB, which is 3.84GB according
> to onlineconversion, closer. Does RAM also have a sort of FAT?
No, it's just that s
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:04:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 01/30/2009 09:54 PM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 02:52:34AM +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> >>On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:54:34AM +, Dean Chester wrote:
> >>If a 100% CPU usage causes your computer to *over*h
On 02/01/2009 08:15 PM, Lee Glidewell wrote:
[snip]
You know what they say about people who assume. ;)
I'll go stand in the corner now.
With your nose pressed into the corner, touching that dust spot at
eye level.
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
"I am not surprised, for we live lon
On Sunday 01 February 2009 17:59:07 Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/01/2009 02:49 PM, Lee Glidewell wrote:
> >
> > No, the issue is that manufactures advertise in *1000, while computers
> > use
>
> Hard drive manufacturers, not RAM manufacturers.
>
> My beard's grey enough to remember when drive manufac
On 02/01/2009 02:49 PM, Lee Glidewell wrote:
On Saturday 31 January 2009 21:01:14 David Fox wrote:
It isn't that RAM has a FAT - those things only are present on
filesystems. It is more likely that free's interpretation doesn't
include kernel memory. Also, 4gb may be 4*1024*1024 not 4*1000*1000,
On Sunday 01 February 2009 17:04:38 Nuno Magalhães wrote:
> > So a stick of memory advertised as 4 Gigabytes is going to present itself
> > to your computer as 3.84 Gibibytes, roughly.
>
> Er... what's the standard in Debian? 1024, right? We're still being
> logical here, right?
Sorry, it's more l
> So a stick of memory advertised as 4 Gigabytes is going to present itself to
> your computer as 3.84 Gibibytes, roughly.
Er... what's the standard in Debian? 1024, right? We're still being
logical here, right?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Saturday 31 January 2009 21:01:14 David Fox wrote:
>
> It isn't that RAM has a FAT - those things only are present on
> filesystems. It is more likely that free's interpretation doesn't
> include kernel memory. Also, 4gb may be 4*1024*1024 not 4*1000*1000,
> although that is more likely to be a
On 02/01/2009 10:04 AM, Mirko Scurk wrote:
[snip]
Could it be that 32-bit Debian can't access rest of memory?
That would only be an issue if he could only see (I think) 2GB of
his 4GB RAM.
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
"I am not surprised, for we live long and are celebrated poope
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 01/31/2009 03:27 PM, Nuno MagalhĂŁes wrote:
>>> Try to run `free' to get a more detailed break up (or even "cat
>>> /proc/meminfo").
>>
>> Running free -g on my system returns 3. I have 4.
>> Running cat /proc/meminfo returns 4030668KB, which is 3.84GB according
>
> That's
On 01/31/2009 11:01 PM, David Fox wrote:
[snip]
It isn't that RAM has a FAT - those things only are present on
filesystems. It is more likely that free's interpretation doesn't
include kernel memory. Also, 4gb may be 4*1024*1024 not 4*1000*1000,
although that is more likely to be a concern with
On 01/31/2009 03:27 PM, Nuno Magalhães wrote:
Try to run `free' to get a more detailed break up (or even "cat
/proc/meminfo").
Running free -g on my system returns 3. I have 4.
Running cat /proc/meminfo returns 4030668KB, which is 3.84GB according
That's 4030668*1024 = 4,127,404,032.
to onl
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Nuno Magalhães wrote:
> It seems as though free won't return the accurate size.
I also have 4 gb of RAM (new Quadcore Intel) and 'free -g' reports '3'
as well, I suspect this is underrounding to the extreme, and 'free
-gb' returns a more realistic number:
f...@n
On 2009-01-31 02:52:34 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:54:34AM +, Dean Chester wrote:
> > I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of
> > my CPU is high. Taking a look at System Monitor i have also
> > discovered that my swap space is being used wh
On 01/31/2009 06:00 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:04:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 01/30/2009 09:54 PM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 02:52:34AM +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:54:34AM +, Dean Chester wrote:
Hi
I r
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:04:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 01/30/2009 09:54 PM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 02:52:34AM +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:54:34AM +, Dean Chester wrote:
Hi
I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% w
> Try to run `free' to get a more detailed break up (or even "cat
> /proc/meminfo").
Running free -g on my system returns 3. I have 4.
Running cat /proc/meminfo returns 4030668KB, which is 3.84GB according
to onlineconversion, closer. Does RAM also have a sort of FAT?
It seems as though free won'
> I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of my CPU is
> high. Taking a look at System Monitor i have also discovered that my swap
> space is being used while only 13% of the RAM is, why isn't is using the
> rest of the RAM. Has anyone got any ideas why?
Unless you really ha
Dean Chester:
>
> I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of my CPU is
> high.
The causality is the other way round: your CPU's temperature rises if
the CPU is being used. That's totally expected. The question is whether
the temperature is high enough to damage your CPU.
J.
On 01/30/2009 09:54 PM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 02:52:34AM +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:54:34AM +, Dean Chester wrote:
Hi
I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of my CPU is
high. Taking a look at System Monitor i hav
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 02:52:34AM +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:54:34AM +, Dean Chester wrote:
> > Hi
> > I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of my CPU is
> > high. Taking a look at System Monitor i have also discovered that my swap
> > spa
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:54:34AM +, Dean Chester wrote:
> Hi
> I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of my CPU is
> high. Taking a look at System Monitor i have also discovered that my swap
> space is being used while only 13% of the RAM is, why isn't is using the
> r
On Friday 2009 January 30 18:54:34 Dean Chester wrote:
>I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of my CPU is
>high. Taking a look at System Monitor i have also discovered that my swap
>space is being used while only 13% of the RAM is, why isn't is using the
>rest of the RAM.
On 01/30/2009 06:54 PM, Dean Chester wrote:
Hi
I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of my CPU
is high. Taking a look at System Monitor i have also discovered that my
swap space is being used
How much? 2%, or 90%?
while only 13% of the RAM i
Hi
I recently noticed that my CPU is at 100% when the temperature of my CPU is
high. Taking a look at System Monitor i have also discovered that my swap
space is being used while only 13% of the RAM is, why isn't is using the
rest of the RAM. Has anyone got any ideas why?
Thanks in Advance
Dean.
30 matches
Mail list logo
