[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Buffers on 64 bit AMD



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear List,

I have now finally got a box running debian with the 64 bit AMD64 (em64t) kernel.
These boxes are used to run multiple 32bit java instances.

The 32bit and 64bit hosts belows are running roughly the same procs
(sun java 1.5 32 bit, and the basic debian os)

What exactly is buffer memory used for? According to docs in kernel "procfs"

"     Buffers: Relatively temporary storage for raw disk blocks
              shouldn't get tremendously large (20MB or so) "


What is going on here?


Thanks for any advice,

Regards

Andrew




64bit:~# vmstat 5
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- - ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa
...
0 0 0 984612 624080 295076 0 0 0 3 1007 2068 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 984628 624080 295076 0 0 0 7 1003 2063 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 984556 624080 295076 0 0 0 6 1007 2070 2 0 98 0 0 0 0 984572 624080 295076 0 0 0 11 1004 1950 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 984572 624080 295076 0 0 0 46 1015 1975 0 0 100 0

64bit:~# free
total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 4105168 3120636 984532 0 624080 295144
- -/+ buffers/cache:    2201412    1903756
Swap:      1028152          0    1028152



32bit:~# vmstat 5
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- - ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 0 0 12 9752 81124 1446012 0 0 0 1 1 4 15 2 83 0 1 0 12 9608 81128 1446076 0 0 0 213 1028 0 0 0 99 1 0 0 12 9688 81136 1446136 0 0 0 65 1017 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 12 9624 81140 1446132 0 0 0 42 1008 0 1 0 99 0

32bit:~# free
total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3369636 3360072 9564 0 81140 1446132
- -/+ buffers/cache:    1832800    1536836
Swap:      1028152         12    1028140
itchy:~#

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFEMXOqW126qUNSzvURAk4qAKCSOZcHuJ//sm+RaDEuOEjqGebtgwCfdYZN
ItQgd/eYHAVkJxwjh+Zfl5o=
=/2jY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: