"David D.W. Downey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When running top, procinfo, or free I get 0 for Shared memory. Obviously
> this is incorrect. What has changed from the 2.2.x and the 2.4.x that
> would cause these apps to misreport this information.
Known 2.4 behaviour. It is simply to costly t
Yeah I just read that. Thanks for the info. Knew nothing about it being
kicked out there. I usually only read looking for package locations of
needed software to run the kernels. Now it looks like I should be reading
more. Thanks for the blow to the head to get me thinking right again. :)
BTW, I
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:11:14 David D.W. Downey wrote:
>
> OK, got a tiny little bug here.
>
> When running top, procinfo, or free I get 0 for Shared memory. Obviously
> this is incorrect. What has changed from the 2.2.x and the 2.4.x that
> would cause these apps to misreport this information.
OK, got a tiny little bug here.
When running top, procinfo, or free I get 0 for Shared memory. Obviously
this is incorrect. What has changed from the 2.2.x and the 2.4.x that
would cause these apps to misreport this information.
This IS information gained through the /proc filesystem which is k
4 matches
Mail list logo
