| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jecepede
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 239
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:46 pm Post subject: More memory issues.... |
 |
|
Ola !
WOW ! What a chrystal clear story ! Thank you all for the explanations. I improoved my system with the swappiness-option.
I do however have a small question....
If you look at the first cat proc/meminfo-output from the guy with 512 Mb you will see this :
| Quote: | | Code: | ccase@miles ccase $ cat /proc/meminfo
MemTotal: 515520 kB
MemFree: 8100 kB
Buffers: 4468 kB
Cached: 35068 kB |
|
I get simular results when I do it with my own PC.
But ! When I do it on my old Armada laptop with only 64 Mb I get :
| Code: | bash-2.05b# cat /proc/meminfo
MemTotal: 60424 kB
MemFree: 3712 kB
Buffers: 372 kB
Cached: 19440 kB
SwapCached: 19764 kB
Active: 47240 kB
Inactive: 2428 kB
HighTotal: 0 kB
HighFree: 0 kB
LowTotal: 60424 kB
LowFree: 3712 kB
SwapTotal: 124984 kB
SwapFree: 75124 kB
Dirty: 96 kB
Writeback: 0 kB
Mapped: 43356 kB
Slab: 5224 kB
CommitLimit: 155196 kB
Committed_AS: 105888 kB
PageTables: 964 kB
VmallocTotal: 974772 kB
VmallocUsed: 264 kB
VmallocChunk: 974464 kB
|
The total memory suddenly is oly 60 Mb and not 64 ! Where did my 4 much needed Mb's go to ???
Same thing happened on my normal PC : When I devide the 515520 Kb by 1024 I get only 503 Mb NOT 512 ???
I have see in some other topics they put an "append mem" in the lilo.conf but it doesn't seem to work for me ???
Can anyone explane that ?
Thanks guys and gals !!!
Jessy
_________________
I've got that retro-feeling :
http://instagram.com/jecepede
Check out my YouTube channel
https://www.youtube.com/jecepede |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
miwalter
n00b
Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
The guy with 512mb gets 503,44MB free reported (a "loss" of 8,56 MB). You get 59,01 MB reported (a "loss" of 4,99 MB).
I would guess this is kernel-memory or some "non usable" ram. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
t3gah
n00b
Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the explanation.
What annoys me about the 'new' kernel is that it creates a swap file twice the size of the physical memory in the system. So if you have 1.5GB or more there is this HUGE waste of space on the system because the equation the kernel has ratio wise to the amount of physical memory versus what people who have that amount of memory in their system use it for cancels out what the actual user wants or needs. In essence, the user cannot disable this "feature" just like M$ because of whatever.
There is of course another issue that comes up with all those older systems and the memory management scheme of the new kernel is there to help make things smoother, but the whole Linux 'world' has become so bloated that you now have to have 128MB minimum according to many distro's for X to even start which is wrong because I've gotten around that.
I wish this explanation was on Linux.org on the main page and on every distro site out there so people can understand the why for's, etc.
Someone from fedoraforum.org gave me this link. Kudos to everyone. I have Gentoo on one of my systems. Sweet O/S.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vyzivus
Apprentice
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 173
Location: Slovakia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello,
thanks for your tutorial, it explained quite a few things. I have a few questions though.
- RES is amount of memory that the process physically occupies. So if I sum up all processes RES I get memory reported as 'used' by 'free' in '-+buffers/cache' section?
- is this the value that gnome-system-monitor shows as 'user memory' ?
- top manual states that RES = CODE + DATA. firefox-bin is obviously ignoring this equation
| Code: | PID USER VIRT RES SHR %MEM SWAP CODE DATA COMMAND
9991 root 80988 54m 7228 5.4 24m 1808 47m X
25597 vyzivus 236m 48m 23m 4.8 187m 112 79m firefox-bin
25557 vyzivus 186m 47m 26m 4.7 139m 1992 50m amarokapp
25387 vyzivus 133m 24m 11m 2.5 108m 292 21m gnome-terminal |
- Take a look at this:
| Code: | PID VIRT RES SHR %CPU %MEM TIME+ SWAP CODE DATA COMMAND
26191 1507m 182m 58m 0.0 18.1 0:40.73 1.3g 52 1.3g java
25597 239m 52m 23m 1.3 5.2 1:56.42 187m 112 83m firefox-bin
25557 187m 46m 25m 4.3 4.6 5:20.10 141m 1992 50m amarokapp |
Here, java takes 1,3GB of SWAP space?? How can this be, on system with 512mb of ram and 256mb of swap? What the hell of memory does java address? I'm using amd64 version of sun-jdk-1.5.0.02, running as a server JavaVM. The system is amd64 with 64bit 2.6.11 gentoo-sources.
_________________
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes or should I? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paulbiz
Guru
Joined: 01 Feb 2004
Posts: 508
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 2:40 am Post subject: Re: Linux Memory Management or 'Why is there no free RAM?' |
|
|
| sapphirecat wrote: | | The mysterious 880 MB limit on x86 |
Nice, I've just reclaimed around 128MB more ram
I always thought there was just something I didn't understand about how it measured my RAM, or my video ram or something was causing the number to be lower. I never looked at the "4 GB" option in the kernel config because I didn't have 4 GB of RAM. But, when I read the help, sure enough it said if you have between 1 GB to 4 GB use this option.
Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sn99520
n00b
Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Posts: 17
Location: Slovakia
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:14 pm Post subject: what uses my RAM? |
|
|
My box is up for 1 day and 19:28
OpenCA server was running on it and now I stopped everithig except X, firefox and urxvt to write this post.
I reallly stoped almost everithing, look:
| Code: |
ps -A
PID TTY TIME CMD
1 ? 00:00:00 init
2 ? 00:00:00 ksoftirqd/0
3 ? 00:00:00 events/0
4 ? 00:00:00 khelper
9 ? 00:00:00 kthread
19 ? 00:00:00 kacpid
117 ? 00:00:01 kblockd/0
188 ? 00:00:00 pdflush
189 ? 00:00:02 pdflush
191 ? 00:00:00 aio/0
190 ? 00:00:01 kswapd0
193 ? 00:00:00 jfsIO
194 ? 00:00:00 jfsCommit
195 ? 00:00:00 jfsSync
196 ? 00:00:00 xfslogd/0
197 ? 00:00:00 xfsdatad/0
198 ? 00:00:00 xfsbufd
794 ? 00:00:00 kseriod
865 ? 00:00:00 ata/0
867 ? 00:00:00 scsi_eh_0
868 ? 00:00:00 scsi_eh_1
877 ? 00:00:00 reiserfs/0
938 ? 00:00:00 udevd
4571 ? 00:00:00 khubd
5547 ? 00:00:00 dhcpcd
6825 ? 00:00:02 syslog-ng
6879 ? 00:00:00 acpid
7178 ? 00:00:00 khpsbpkt
7244 ? 00:00:00 knodemgrd_0
9344 ? 00:00:00 sshd
9384 ? 00:00:00 cron
9563 ? 00:00:00 xfs
9629 ? 00:00:00 xinetd
9644 tty1 00:00:00 agetty
9645 tty2 00:00:00 agetty
9646 tty3 00:00:00 agetty
9647 tty4 00:00:00 agetty
9648 tty5 00:00:00 agetty
9649 tty6 00:00:00 agetty
9745 ? 00:00:00 xdm
31419 ? 00:00:28 X
31424 ? 00:00:00 xdm
31456 ? 00:00:00 Xsession
31502 ? 00:00:00 fluxbox
31518 ? 00:00:00 torsmo
31529 ? 00:00:00 mozilla-launche
31540 ? 00:00:26 firefox-bin
31943 ? 00:00:00 urxvt
31954 pts/0 00:00:00 bash
2304 pts/0 00:00:00 ps |
And look at my mem usage, this is "top" sorted by mem usage. I don't have problem with 186120k buffers, and 791204k cached.
But there is only 314868k free. I have 2 Gig RAM.
This means RAM Usage is 742 M. what uses so much RAM, if I stoped almost everithing???
| Code: | top - 17:03:14 up 1 day, 19:26, 0 users, load average: 0.04, 0.01, 0.00
Tasks: 50 total, 1 running, 49 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 2.3% us, 0.7% sy, 0.0% ni, 96.7% id, 0.0% wa, 0.3% hi, 0.0% si
Mem: 2056044k total, 1741176k used, 314868k free, 186120k buffers
Swap: 506036k total, 0k used, 506036k free, 791204k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
31419 root 15 0 126m 90m 2804 S 2.0 4.5 0:21.96 X
31540 steve 16 0 89932 28m 13m S 0.7 1.4 0:19.07 firefox-bin
31943 steve 15 0 32584 5316 2408 S 0.0 0.3 0:00.24 urxvt
31502 steve 15 0 28272 4468 2920 S 0.0 0.2 0:00.66 fluxbox
9563 xfs 16 0 15508 4084 1032 S 0.0 0.2 0:00.13 xfs
31424 root 16 0 24736 2336 1776 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.01 xdm
9344 root 16 0 17072 1768 1392 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.07 sshd
31954 steve 15 0 8996 1540 1152 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.00 bash
9745 root 16 0 17008 1292 1008 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.00 xdm
31529 steve 21 0 4820 1244 908 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.01 mozilla-launche
1559 steve 16 0 10432 1224 924 R 0.3 0.1 0:00.01 top
31456 steve 18 0 4560 1072 896 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.00 Xsession
31518 steve 16 0 6652 1016 840 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.10 torsmo
9629 root 18 0 10828 968 776 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 xinetd
6825 root 16 0 6040 812 584 S 0.0 0.0 0:02.94 syslog-ng
9384 root 16 0 8952 760 620 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 cron
9644 root 16 0 3620 644 540 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 agetty
9645 root 16 0 3620 644 540 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 agetty
9646 root 16 0 3620 644 540 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 agetty
9647 root 16 0 3620 644 540 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 agetty
9648 root 16 0 3620 644 540 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 agetty
9649 root 16 0 3620 644 540 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 agetty
6879 root 24 0 2680 596 504 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 acpid
1 root 16 0 2556 548 460 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.83 init
5547 root 11 -5 2568 512 428 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 dhcpcd
938 root 12 -5 2540 460 352 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.02 udevd
2 root 34 19 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.03 ksoftirqd/0
3 root 10 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.29 events/0
4 root 11 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 khelper
9 root 10 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kthread
19 root 20 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kacpid
117 root 10 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:01.37 kblockd/0
188 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 pdflush
189 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:02.73 pdflush
191 root 19 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 aio/0
190 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:01.69 kswapd0
193 root 25 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 jfsIO
194 root 25 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 jfsCommit
195 root 25 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 jfsSync
196 root 19 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 xfslogd/0
197 root 19 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 xfsdatad/0
198 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.01 xfsbufd
794 root 17 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kseriod
865 root 11 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 ata/0
867 root 16 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 scsi_eh_0
868 root 17 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 scsi_eh_1
877 root 10 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.03 reiserfs/0
4571 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.11 khubd
7178 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 khpsbpkt
|
I,m sorry if answer to my question was already answered in this thread, but I did not find it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vyzivus
Apprentice
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 173
Location: Slovakia
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I also had problems with memory consumption. They vanished after revdep-rebuild, so my guess is that multiple versions of libraries were used at once by binaries that didn't get recompiled. Don't know the exact reason though.
_________________
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes or should I? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LordThunder
n00b
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| t3gah wrote: | Thanks for the explanation.
What annoys me about the 'new' kernel is that it creates a swap file twice the size of the physical memory in the system. So if you have 1.5GB or more there is this HUGE waste of space on the system because the equation the kernel has ratio wise to the amount of physical memory versus what people who have that amount of memory in their system use it for cancels out what the actual user wants or needs. In essence, the user cannot disable this "feature" just like M$ because of whatever.
There is of course another issue that comes up with all those older systems and the memory management scheme of the new kernel is there to help make things smoother, but the whole Linux 'world' has become so bloated that you now have to have 128MB minimum according to many distro's for X to even start which is wrong because I've gotten around that.
I wish this explanation was on Linux.org on the main page and on every distro site out there so people can understand the why for's, etc.
Someone from fedoraforum.org gave me this link. Kudos to everyone. I have Gentoo on one of my systems. Sweet O/S. |
Some remarks to this:
- 1. The size of your swap partition is not at all determined by your kernel.
The size is whatever you made it when partitioning your harddisk at the install of your system, so if it's 3gigs: blame your crappy distribution, not the kernel.
In the old days the 'rule of thumb' was swapsize == 2x installed RAM ,but never larger than 128mb. I find that alof of people new to Linux are not aware of the second half of the rule. This made sense when you had computers with <=64 mb RAM installed. On top of that, the kernel didn't even support larger swapsizes than 128mb anyway, even if you made partition that was larger than that (you could only circumvent that by adding more swappartitions). If you have a regular modern system, you basically have to eyeball the swapsize and adjust it to whatever you think you want to have as extra 'breathingspace'. I usally reserve between 128 and 512mb. I would recommend to always have at least some swapspace. Actually, historically some parts of the system had issues with the swapsize being zero, so I guess it's also good way to avoid any of those issues that may linger.
- 2. The required memory of today's ditributions is mainly governed by the fact you use 'bloated' desktop environments. KDE and Gnome both load alot of resident libraries and services that eat away from your memory like there is no tomorrow; It's the price you pay for the 'integration', ease of use and mostly, the eyecandy.
If you wish to run a lighter desktop, try use other windowmanagers like windowmaker, fvwm2, fluxbox etc., which have a significantly smaller memory footprint.
Kind regards,
-- Lord Thunder (using Linux since 1994) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spindle
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 245
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Excellent excellent writeup. Very informative. Cleared up a few things for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trinite
n00b
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:08 pm Post subject: memory problems |
|
|
Having lately some memory problems with one of my servers. After running for about a week, all my memory and swap are in use, slowing down performance / killing apps.
The server is a little bit short on memory (512 M RAM, an 1 G swap) and is running apache, php, courier-imap (pop3, imap, imap-ssl), qmail, spamassassin, clamav, vsftpd and ssh).
free gives the following output:
| Code: | # free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 512740 505536 7204 0 4064 10248
-/+ buffers/cache: 491224 21516
Swap: 979956 979956 0 |
top:
| Code: | top - 14:55:59 up 29 days, 4:34, 1 user, load average: 4.01, 2.95, 1.80
Tasks: 82 total, 1 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 1.1% us, 0.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 97.8% id, 1.1% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
Mem: 512740k total, 506040k used, 6700k free, 4624k buffers
Swap: 979956k total, 979956k used, 0k free, 15808k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
4942 root 16 0 265m 60m 180 S 0.0 12.1 0:56.15 authdaemond
4943 root 16 0 261m 60m 64 S 0.0 12.0 0:55.22 authdaemond
4946 root 16 0 260m 59m 348 S 0.0 11.9 0:55.56 authdaemond
4944 root 16 0 261m 59m 192 S 0.0 11.9 0:55.58 authdaemond
4945 root 16 0 259m 58m 72 S 0.0 11.6 0:54.89 authdaemond
32224 root 16 0 61800 57m 1000 S 0.0 11.4 0:48.56 spamd
32225 root 17 0 56284 51m 856 S 0.0 10.4 0:04.11 spamd
32112 root 16 0 53356 49m 996 S 0.0 9.8 0:03.49 spamd
4815 root 16 0 58536 16m 232 S 0.0 3.4 20:53.05 clamd
4444 mysql 17 0 140m 4564 1244 S 0.0 0.9 2:56.12 mysqld
7725 apache 16 0 224m 4068 1184 S 0.0 0.8 0:02.00 apache2
1583 root 17 0 6884 3668 520 S 0.0 0.7 0:00.15 qmail-scanner-q
5354 root 16 0 3556 3556 2584 S 0.0 0.7 0:02.16 ntpd
14590 root 16 0 6572 3364 448 S 0.0 0.7 0:03.16 gds_inet_server
7723 apache 16 0 223m 3332 576 S 0.0 0.6 0:02.30 apache2
13958 root 16 0 6568 3232 456 S 0.0 0.6 0:03.93 gds_inet_server
23925 root 16 0 6764 1836 492 S 0.0 0.4 0:02.26 apache2
7722 apache 18 0 6392 1740 300 S 0.0 0.3 0:00.00 apache2
933 root 15 0 6164 1040 660 S 0.0 0.2 0:00.19 sshd
1804 root 16 0 2080 988 720 R 0.4 0.2 0:00.18 top
948 admin 16 0 6328 956 548 S 0.0 0.2 0:00.32 sshd
949 admin 15 0 2796 844 544 S 0.0 0.2 0:00.00 bash
961 root 17 0 2536 840 540 S 0.0 0.2 0:00.03 bash
954 root 16 0 2160 760 548 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.00 su
1582 qmaild 15 0 2764 604 432 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.00 qmail-smtpd
5827 root 16 0 2100 584 508 S 0.0 0.1 0:02.76 xinetd
5751 root 16 0 2956 528 488 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.23 vsftpd
5901 root 16 0 1492 516 512 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.00 agetty
5902 root 16 0 1492 516 512 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.00 agetty
5903 root 16 0 1492 516 512 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.00 agetty
5904 root 16 0 1492 516 512 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.00 agetty
5905 root 16 0 1492 516 512 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.00 agetty
5908 root 16 0 1492 516 512 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.00 agetty
5679 root 17 0 1704 492 452 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.34 cron
32177 qmaild 16 0 1512 492 424 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.10 tcpserver
32181 qmails 16 0 1488 460 380 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.19 qmail-send
812 root 15 0 1536 436 392 S 0.0 0.1 0:18.07 couriertcpd |
As you can see, the load averages are also much to high, which might be caused by the memory shortage?
Does anyone know what happens to all my memory?
Tnx in advance!
Btw, it is a P4 2400. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phajdan.jr
Retired Dev
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1777
Location: Poland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nixnut
Bodhisattva
Joined: 09 Apr 2004
Posts: 10974
Location: the dutch mountains
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
merged above two posts here.
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered
talk is cheap. supply exceeds demand |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultory
Bodhisattva
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 9410
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evincar
Apprentice
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 217
Location: Madrid
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:04 pm Post subject: Thanks!! |
|
|
Excellent explanation!! I was wondering why I always had only about 60MB free. And it kinda puzzled me that the system stayed responsive nevertheless. In XP, whenever my mem usage goes to 800 MB or so, I am toast  .
I would say this should be a sticky or part of the FAQ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Auswaschbar
n00b
Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have another question:
Because i have 1280mb of ram in my notebook, but didn't want the highmem-overhead I set the 2g/2g user/kernel memory split (I use kernel 2.6.20, in older ones there is no such options I think). Now it recognizes and uses all of the ram. I only wonder if there are any disadvantages of this method?!? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
achlice
n00b
Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
really did a good job ,i mean ,the editer~~
_________________
just do it ~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
x22
Apprentice
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 208
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vyzivus wrote: | Hello,
- RES is amount of memory that the process physically occupies. So if I sum up all processes RES I get memory reported as 'used' by 'free' in '-+buffers/cache' section?
|
The sum will be different. In memory management everything is more complicated as it looks. (For example, some memory is shared between more processes, some memory is used for kernel and not for any process, and there are millions of other possibilities.)
| vyzivus wrote: |
| Code: |
PID VIRT RES SHR %CPU %MEM TIME+ SWAP CODE DATA COMMAND
26191 1507m 182m 58m 0.0 18.1 0:40.73 1.3g 52 1.3g java
|
Here, java takes 1,3GB of SWAP space?? How can this be, on system with 512mb of ram and 256mb of swap? What the hell of memory does java address? I'm using amd64 version of sun-jdk-1.5.0.02, running as a server JavaVM. The system is amd64 with 64bit 2.6.11 gentoo-sources. |
Top calculates SWAP as VIRT-RES. This is not the correct way to calculate swap usage of a process. (Once again: In memory management everything is more complicated as it looks.) I don't know the correct way.
Java is very good at taking large amounts purely virtual memory (memory which is unused and physically stored nowhere). Large part of that 1.5GB doesn't take any space in RAM or on disk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Documentation, Tips & Tricks
