On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 02:49:24AM -0600, Blesson Paul wrote:
> I have some confusion regarding key in shmget(). Let I
> have two shared memory variables. For the first one, I put key "99" and the
> size is 1024. Next, I put key "199" for the second variable and size 1024.
>
hi
I have some confusion regarding key in shmget(). Let I
have two shared memory variables. For the first one, I put key "99" and the
size is 1024. Next, I put key "199" for the second variable and size 1024.
Will the two shared memory area overwrite each other. How can I
hi
I have some confusion regarding key in shmget(). Let I
have two shared memory variables. For the first one, I put key 99 and the
size is 1024. Next, I put key 199 for the second variable and size 1024.
Will the two shared memory area overwrite each other. How can I
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 02:49:24AM -0600, Blesson Paul wrote:
I have some confusion regarding key in shmget(). Let I
have two shared memory variables. For the first one, I put key 99 and the
size is 1024. Next, I put key 199 for the second variable and size 1024.
Will
Hi Admin,
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Admin Mailing Lists wrote:
>
> I've been using the 2.2.x series successfully, latest i used was
> 2.2.19pre7. Today i upgraded to 2.4.1-ac9 and noticed that shared
> memory shows 0. I searched the list archive briefly and someone
> said the stats have been
Hi Admin,
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Admin Mailing Lists wrote:
I've been using the 2.2.x series successfully, latest i used was
2.2.19pre7. Today i upgraded to 2.4.1-ac9 and noticed that shared
memory shows 0. I searched the list archive briefly and someone
said the stats have been broken
I've been using the 2.2.x series successfully, latest i used
was 2.2.19pre7.
Today i upgraded to 2.4.1-ac9 and noticed that shared memory shows 0.
I searched the list archive briefly and someone said the stats have been
broken since sometime in 2.3, but my system also shows my swap being used
up
I've been using the 2.2.x series successfully, latest i used
was 2.2.19pre7.
Today i upgraded to 2.4.1-ac9 and noticed that shared memory shows 0.
I searched the list archive briefly and someone said the stats have been
broken since sometime in 2.3, but my system also shows my swap being used
up
8 matches
Mail list logo