Re: more on memory problem
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, 22516K buff
> > Swap: 498004K av, 0K used, 498004K free 6324K cached
>
> You're using 49M, roughly. Of that 49M, a bunch is the below
> processes, but you're also using 22.5M for buffers and 6.3M for cache.
> That's just under 30M.... add in the shared memory (which is tricky,
> because it's also charged to each process using it), and the numbers are
> very much believable. (Shared memory is [mostly] your dynamically
> loaded libraries -- since dozens or even hundreds of processes will want
> to have libc and other common libraries, the library itself is only
> mapped into memory once which saves a ton of memory and even speeds up
> program loading.)
>
> See http://www.linuxdoc.org/FAQ/Linux-FAQ/x1925.html#AEN2027
Thanks so much for the link and the explanation. This make more sense
to me now.
> You still have far more memory in this machine than it needs. (ie, it
> is presently wasting 468M by not using it as cache or buffers since your
> disk activity is not high enough to justify it.)
Not exactly. There is a reason there are 512M of RAM. The machine is
not doing much yet, but it will be. Testing out the Webtrends ERS
last week I had it up to almost 500M used RAM. And it didn't really
go down from there. That was what started to worry me. But when it
happens again I will keep in mind what you said about and look more
into it.
Thanks for all the replies.
-Ken
--
hazmat@hellrot.org AIM: ScopusFest
Reply to: