On 12/29/2003 at 1:45 PM Anne Wilson wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >On Monday 29 December 2003 13:27, Steven Nelson wrote: >> I was thinking the disk cache was on the hard drive. Are u sure it >> is in the memory? I know in alot of the Windows versions I have >> used there was settings where you could enable a cache and set the >> size of it. You might be confused or I might be but I thought when >> memory was not used it is waiting for applications to use it or for >> when you use the applications that would be already enabled and >> they need more memory. > >This is where linux and windows handle things quite differently. >Windows sets aside a memory area, and once that's filled up it starts >writing to disk cache. In linux, it sees memory rather like a pond >that is fed by a stream. Water (data) can flow into it as long as it >is not full, but when it runs out of space it simply lets some run >away (least likely to be needed data) to make room for the new. If >you have plenty of ram it will operate within that space for most of >the time, barely touching your swap partition. That's what happens >on mine (512MB). If it is really being worked hard, which is usually >a short time, it will use the ram and the swap, but it will still >handle it much more efficiently than windows does. It is a >completely different system. > >> I didn't think applications should use that >> much of the memory. Almost all of the memory is gone because the >> applications are using it. If I run out of memory then I will not >> be able to use the computer correctly and it will freeze. > >Believe me, it wont <g> My memory usage goes close to the 512MB >within an hour or two of booting up, but I have run for weeks at a >time and never had a problem caused by memory shortage. > >> Won't >> other applications need the memory? > >Yes, and it will be released as necessary. > >> The swap space is not being >> used at all. > >That shows that it is working well. > >> That is the problem, on all of the terminals that are >> avaible with Mandrake 9.2 none of them will let the left click menu >> appear. When I used Mandrake 9.1 there was one terminal that had >> that feature, it is not with Mandrake 9.2. > >I'm not sure what you mean by this one, Seven, and since I don't use >9.2 I'll let someone else try to answer that. > >> Is the Konquerer file >> you mentioned the same as the Lilo? Do I need to get both? I booted >> the enterprise kernel and it read the 1024mb of memory right. That >> helped with how much memory is being used, there is still around >> 360mb being used. I would think that is to much but if you are >> right about the programs using that much memory, I guess not. If it >> helps, the questions that are have are in the paragraph. Some of >> them do not have question marks at the end of them and are >> questions within a regular sentence. You should be able to >> understand the paragraph and what the questions are if you >> understand what is happening with the memory problem. >> >Apart from that one bit, I understood your concerns. Believe me, I >remember how difficult it is to come to terms with such a fundamental >difference <g>. I'm glad that the enterprise kernel appears to be >working well for you, and I hope that my explanations have made >things clearer. I think your terminal question is a different thing, >though, and it may help to start another thread with a subject >directly relating to that, as others may be ignoring this thread, >thinking that Derek and I are dealing with it. > > >Anne
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** Steven; Anne's analogy is one of the most elegant ones I've seen in a long time! Makes me feel like I should get a straw hat and a fishin' pole and go lookin' fer some o' them danged "ram catfish"! <g> ! Whether Anne meant to or not, she's managed to hit on one of the most significant differences between Windows and Linux. Linux manages memory in a distinctly different manner than Windows. Microsoft's memory manager has always been a P.O.S. ( and I don't mean Point-of-Sale ! ), because it would essentially grab ram as needed by the various applications and services running on a PC or server. While that doesn't sound too bad, the problem was that it does a rotten job of managing and tracking the jobs sitting in ram, and also it sucks at returning that ram to an unused state, once the application or whatever has finished using it. In many instances, the Windows memory manager would also send 2 or more jobs to the exact same physical or virtual ram locations, thus causing a large percentage of the B.S.O.D.'s that sent many Linux users scrambling away from Microsoft product. Windows 2000 had the best memory manager of the lot, and even that one has been less than Stellar! I know dozens of Microsoft Net and Sys Admins that regularly reboot their servers in order to clean things up ( it's the easiest way to refresh the ram for them ), while most Linux users only reboot when there's a significant change made to their PC's or Servers, or they've had a major power failure. Linux on the other hand, grabs most or all the ram in the system and manages it properly or nearly so, sending jobs to ram when needed, tracking the ram "spaces" and cleaning up that ram when it's finished with it. Since most services and applications are written as separate programs, each one can be assigned the proper amount of ram, and this won't interfere with other apps that are currently running. For example, in Linux, you can start/stop the X-Server without affecting any services or background apps that are running. If the X-Server crashes, you don't need to restart the whole O/S, just the X-Server. If a desktop application crashes, no biggy! Just kill it and start a new instance of it. That's the way a system should work. Just don't tell the guys in Redmond, because , after all, Linux is a cancer, isn't it? Most Linux users would probably agree that Windows is the cancer, and Linux is the cure! Hope that helps? Lanman
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
