On Feb 04 2001, LA Walsh wrote:
> Another oddity -- I notice things taking alot more memory
> in 2.4. This coincides with 'top' consistently showing I have 0 shared
> memory.
AFAIK, the 2.4.0 series does share memory, but it's just the
counters that are not updated, for they are
Its supposed to, its too costly to calculate shared memory with the new VM
I'm told.
Shawn.
LA Walsh wrote:
> Another oddity -- I notice things taking alot more memory
> in 2.4. This coincides with 'top' consistently showing I have 0 shared
> memory. These two observations would have me
Its supposed to, its too costly to calculate shared memory with the new VM
I'm told.
Shawn.
LA Walsh wrote:
Another oddity -- I notice things taking alot more memory
in 2.4. This coincides with 'top' consistently showing I have 0 shared
memory. These two observations would have me
On Feb 04 2001, LA Walsh wrote:
Another oddity -- I notice things taking alot more memory
in 2.4. This coincides with 'top' consistently showing I have 0 shared
memory.
AFAIK, the 2.4.0 series does share memory, but it's just the
counters that are not updated, for they are
Another oddity -- I notice things taking alot more memory
in 2.4. This coincides with 'top' consistently showing I have 0 shared
memory. These two observations would have me wondering if I
have somehow misconfigured my system to disallow sharing. Note
that /proc/meminfo also shows 0 shared
Another oddity -- I notice things taking alot more memory
in 2.4. This coincides with 'top' consistently showing I have 0 shared
memory. These two observations would have me wondering if I
have somehow misconfigured my system to disallow sharing. Note
that /proc/meminfo also shows 0 shared
6 matches
Mail list logo
