Re: Finding the Bottleneck
Hi,
AFAIK, even if there was a gig of ram in there, it would not allocate any
(or maybe just a little) to free memory, and would throw any free memory
into buffers anyway.
So 68M of buffers tells me it has ample free memory, it or wouldn't
allocate so much there anyway, right?
Sincerely,
Jason
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcin Owsiany" <porridge@pandora.info.bielsko.pl>
To: <debian-isp@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 02:04:36AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> > I'm not exactly sure how the Linux kernel would handle this.
> >
> > Right now, the swap is untouched. If the server needed more ram,
wouldn't
> > it be swapping something... anything? I mean, it currently has 0kb in
> > swap, and still has free memory.
> >
> > Here is a recent top:
> >
> > 101 processes: 97 sleeping, 3 running, 1 zombie, 0 stopped
> > CPU states: 9.4% user, 14.0% system, 0.5% nice, 76.1% idle
> > Mem: 128236K total, 125492K used, 2744K free, 69528K
buffers
> > Swap: 289160K total, 0K used, 289160K free, 10320K
cached
>
> Remember that adding RAM means larger buffers/cache, and so
> faster IO. Only 3 MB free memory means that Linux would really
> like more RAM for larger buffers.
>
> Marcin
> --
> Marcin Owsiany <porridge@pandora.info.bielsko.pl>
> http://student.uci.agh.edu.pl/~porridge/
> GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216 FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75 D6F6 3A0D 8AA0 60F4
1216
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: