On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 17:52 +0530, Micheal Mukherji wrote: > 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".
Sigh. The Linux kernel has *both* "buffers" and "cache" both of which are allocated from RAM. That "cache" (which is currently 353400KB on my system) is certainly *not* the CPU cache, which is only 512KB. If you don't believe me, run "top", and see for your self. > 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 "I want to have children and I know my time is running out: I want to have them while my parents are still young enough to take care of them." Rita Rudner
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
