On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:42:57 -0400 Rhiamom <rhia...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2013, at 4:59 AM, Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com> wrote
... > > You would be correct if the number you're looking at reflected > > application memory usage. But it doesn't. On any of the modern > > operating systems one must damn near be a computer scientist to see the > > actual memory usage. The 5.22GB, this is on Debian, yes? The system > > monitor? This reports process and cache memory usage. The buffer/cache > > will literally eat nearly all available memory all the time on Linux, > > then free some when an application process needs it. I've never used > > OSX but it's probably similar in its desktop reporting tool. > > This was in OS X. The memory use would be similar in Debian, I assume. About > a quarter of the used memory was "inactive" which I assume was the cache. > Still > too close for comfort for me, as WoW was not running, nor ventrilo, and WoW > does background downloads of the almost-weekly patches while you play, so > even > more processes. It may be necessary to be a computer scientist to understand stuff like VIRT / RES / SHR, but it's trivial to separate out process and cache usage - one just looks at the second, rather than first, line of 'free' output. Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131002112831.3d24899b6fd524e4c160a...@gmail.com
