On Monday 09 July 2001 08:10, you wrote:
> Would the amount of swap in use be a good benchmark to judge whether
> your system would benefit from more RAM? I mean, if in normal use you
> don't use any swap, then you have a very sufficient amount of RAM.
Not necessarily. I have, for example, 256
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anguo
> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 23:55
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [newbie] Memory use
>
>
> ¦b 2001 ¤C¤ë 1 ¬P´Á¤é 23:01¡Acivileme ¼g¹D:
> > linux makes an
I'm running a Gig of Ram in my "Play-Station", and the only advantage is that
OpenOffice opens right smartly! Other than that, everything runs normally.
Dan
On July 9, 2001 09:03 am, you wrote:
> On Sunday 08 July 2001 10:54 pm, Anguo wrote:
> > I just bought a new box and insisted on having
GNU/Linux uses spare RAM to cache your hard drive, the slowest part of any
system. Generally, the more RAM you have the better, since you'll have a
larger cache. However, I believe the law of diminishing returns would begin
to kick in well before the 1300MB mark. This, of course depends on what
¦b 2001 ¤C¤ë 1 ¬P´Á¤é 23:01¡Acivileme ¼g¹D:
> linux makes an effort to keep almost all memory in use all the time
> (figuring unused memory is wasted memory), so it often finds memory
> errors right away that windows would totally miss.
> Civileme
Oh!
You just replied a question I didn't ask!
:-
