Re: Linux memory monitoring compared to MS-Windows

2007-12-18 Thread Ilya Konstantinov
On Dec 18, 2007 2:36 AM, Oded Arbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: how much of that virtual memory the process actually tries to use but can't get it all in physical RAM because other processes are also hogging the memory. Does such a thing exist in Linux? To phrase it differently: In the last

Re: Linux memory monitoring compared to MS-Windows

2007-12-18 Thread Oded Arbel
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 12:47 +0200, Ilya Konstantinov wrote: On Dec 18, 2007 2:36 AM, Oded Arbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: how much of that virtual memory the process actually tries to use but can't get it all in physical RAM because other processes are also

Re: Linux memory monitoring compared to MS-Windows

2007-12-18 Thread Oren Held
There's something in your question I don't understand: If a process has 1gb in virtual memory, of which 500mb in physical, then this means that it has 500mb in swap. Or in other words: 500mb that the process wanted in physical but couldn't. (isn't that what you asked to know) Obviously I'm

Re: Linux memory monitoring compared to MS-Windows

2007-12-18 Thread Ilya Konstantinov
On Dec 18, 2007 2:47 PM, Oren Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a process has 1gb in virtual memory, of which 500mb in physical, then this means that it has 500mb in swap. Or in other words: 500mb that the process wanted in physical but couldn't. (isn't that what you asked to know) BTW, are

Re: Linux memory monitoring compared to MS-Windows

2007-12-18 Thread Gilad Ben-Yossef
Oren Held wrote: There's something in your question I don't understand: If a process has 1gb in virtual memory, of which 500mb in physical, then this means that it has 500mb in swap. No, that is not what it means. Virtual memory amount might be different then physical memory amount due a

Re: Linux memory monitoring compared to MS-Windows

2007-12-18 Thread Oded Arbel
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 17:03 +0200, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: Oren Held wrote: There's something in your question I don't understand: If a process has 1gb in virtual memory, of which 500mb in physical, then this means that it has 500mb in swap. No, that is not what it means. Virtual

Re: Linux memory monitoring compared to MS-Windows

2007-12-18 Thread Muli Ben-Yehuda
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:54:56PM +0200, Oded Arbel wrote: The real question - as emphasized by all the comments I received - is: can I know how much memory the process is accessing (within some time period) specifically when its more then the total of pages actually held in physical memory.

Re: Linux memory monitoring compared to MS-Windows

2007-12-18 Thread Oleg Goldshmidt
Oded Arbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now (again - according to my understanding) under contention - i.e. when processes need to use more physical memory then what is available - the memory manager keeps swapping stuff in and out of memory in an attempt to satisfy all requests. Under such

Re: Linux memory monitoring compared to MS-Windows

2007-12-18 Thread Oded Arbel
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 18:36 +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:54:56PM +0200, Oded Arbel wrote: The real question - as emphasized by all the comments I received - is: can I know how much memory the process is accessing (within some time period) specifically when its

Linux memory monitoring compared to MS-Windows

2007-12-17 Thread Oded Arbel
Hi List. I heard (but haven't actually seen) that in MS-Windows the system keeps track of some notion of working set, which is supposedly (if I understand correctly) the total size of pages that an application referenced recently - whether these are currently resident or swapped out (see