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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
