Re: more on memory problem

2001-01-24 Thread Ken Weingold
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,

Re: more on memory problem

2001-01-23 Thread Matthew Dalton
Matthew Dalton wrote: > > Mem: 517500K av, 49412K used, 468088K free, 14644K shrd, 22516K buff > > ^^^ > There's your 'free' memory. Line wrapping killed the meaning... 22516K buff <- that's the bit I meant... :/ ^^^

Re: more on memory problem

2001-01-23 Thread brian moore
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 06:15:48PM -0500, Ken Weingold wrote: > If it helps, here is the top readout. There really is not much > running: > > > 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.

Re: more on memory problem

2001-01-23 Thread Matthew Dalton
If there were a FAQ for this list (is there?), this would be the first question in it. Ken Weingold wrote: > > what happens is that applications > don't release memory when they are done. Ken Weingold also wrote: > 6:13pm up 20 min, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 > 27 processes: 26

more on memory problem

2001-01-23 Thread Ken Weingold
If it helps, here is the top readout. There really is not much running: 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 fr