Re: Memory usage: buffer and cache
If I am not wrong, the standard OS terminology for it is "buffer
cache". I think this is what Paul was trying to differentiate from the
main "cache".
Paul, please confirm.
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 07:13:17 -0500, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 17:17 +0530, Micheal Mukherji wrote:
>
>
> > > No, because Linux doesn't see the CPU cache. I'd bet my last
> > > kopek that Paul is talking about:
> >
> > Who said Linux sees CPU cache?
> > He was asking the difference between the two.. or am I wrong?
>
> Because Linux also has a "cache", as I pointed out in my previous
> post.
>
> Buffers: 138752 kB <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> Cached: 326116 kB <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Ron Johnson, Jr.
> Jefferson, LA USA
> PGP Key ID 8834C06B
>
> "Why should we not accept all in favor of woman suffrage to our
> platform and association even though they be rabid pro-slavery
> Democrats."
> Susan B. Anthony, _History_of_Woman_Suffrage_
> http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/essays/introduction.html
>
>
>
Reply to: