On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 08:56:05PM +0200, Anders Thoresson wrote: > > The problem with this answer is that the guy has 192MB of RAM, and 2 hard > > drives. I can't vouch for his disk space availability, but 192MB should > > still be plenty of RAM in which to run KDE.
Sure, its plenty to start with. But how long before X, etc cache starts taking all this. That's one way to have performance tank. > I'm running Gnome. Is Gnome more hungry for memory than KDE? > > Right now, 95% of my 192 MB RAM is used, but just 6% of my 385 MB of > swap. > > Running just Gnome, Gnomeicu, Evolution and Opera, I would have guessed > to have a little more free RAM? Just a casual observations, based on my previous system which was 256M Ram, 512 Swap, running just X (no gnome or kde): On a clean boot, all is great for maybe a week. During this time X memory consumption slowly increases, I guess due to caching, etc. Eventually swap usage increases also, of course. At some point, usually around 75% full, swap usage becomes a severe performance hindrance (at what point this happens depends on kernel version -- some are much worse than others). Something that was very fast, becomes an egg-sucking dog. So my solution, when I couldn't stand it anymore, was to restart X. This frees up all the various X memory. For me, this was every 7-14 days, or so. It seems X-4.2 is much better about all this BTW. Now I am on a 1G machine, and it just isn't an issue. I run X 30+ days with no performance detriment. Hardly any swap is used. I would guess these issues would surface faster with memory hogs such as kde or gnome, etc. If I had 192M RAM for my usage, I'd want want probably at least 700M swap to avoid this particular situation. -- Hal Burgiss -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
