From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:56:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:56:30 -0500 Received: from mail2.linuxis.net ([64.71.140.142]:64457 "HELO moria.linuxis.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:56:29 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:51:56 -0800 From: Adam McKenna To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: VM problems in 2.4.20 Message-ID: <20030226215156.GB14293@flounder.net> Mail-Followup-To: Adam McKenna , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20030226194043.GA14293@flounder.net> <200302262101.57367.m.c.p@wolk-project.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200302262101.57367.m.c.p@wolk-project.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:04:52PM +0100, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 20:40, Adam McKenna wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > > I'm having a VM issue on one of my servers running 2.4.20. > well, the vanilla VM, hmm, sorry: sucks :) for large boxen. Can you expand on "sucks"? 4GB is not really that large of a system anymore. I still don't see how this memory taken up by buffers/cache is not freed when a system process needs it. I have always thought that this type of memory is by definition "lower priority", and should be dropped when a process needs more memory. Is this not the case? --Adam