From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261925AbUL0QeV (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:34:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261926AbUL0QeV (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:34:21 -0500 Received: from bay15-f41.bay15.hotmail.com ([65.54.185.41]:30193 "EHLO hotmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261925AbUL0QeS (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:34:18 -0500 Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [61.10.7.28] X-Originating-Email: [mbenz74@hotmail.com] From: "M Benz" To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: cache and buffer usage with kernel 2.6.10 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:33:41 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=big5; format=flowed X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Dec 2004 16:34:16.0530 (UTC) FILETIME=[E821D320:01C4EC31] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, I just upgrade my linux box from 2.6.8.1 to 2.6.10 yesterday, and I found that the memory usage behavier is very different btw the 2 kernels. I built 2.6.10 with the same .config with my 2.6.8.1 My box is a Pentium 4 HT machine, with 2GB of RAM, it's running apache to service a very busy website, around 1.5M PHP pageviews per day. With kernel 2.6.8.1, "top" always show me acount 150MB buffer, 1.3-1.5GB cached, and 1-2M free, after switch to kernel 2.6.10, "top" shows me around 500MB buffer, 800M cache, and several MB free. after around 10 hours with 2.6.10, top now shows me 800MB buffer, 500MB cache and 2-300MB free. Is there any change with memory management btw the two kernels? Also, what is the different btw "cache" and "buffer"? Why don't kernel 2.6.10 use all the memory but leave around 200MB free? Thanks. _________________________________________________________________ 使用 MSN Messenger，與朋友在線上聊天: http://messenger.microsoft.com/tc