[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       suse-linux-e
Subject:    RE: [SLE] OO: If you can make it, I can break it!
From:       "Greg Wallace" <gregwallace () fastmail ! fm>
Date:       2005-12-30 4:30:43
Message-ID: !~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAFi/9+yIBsUe66x5a7uVsecKAAAAQAAAAHWYvBm4EkE2kMY+53OwHtwEAAAAA () fastmail ! fm
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thursday, December 29, 2005 @ 11:04 AM, Carlos Robinson wrote:

>The Thursday 2005-12-29 at 08:38 -0500, Ken Schneider wrote:

>> 15578 ken       16   0 30728  19m  13m S  0.0  2.5   0:03.02 oooqs
>> 
>> looks like it is using all of 19m of memory which will go to
>> cache/buffers anyway if oooqs is not running so if you are concerned
>> about something "hogging" your memory look at what caching/buffering is
>> doing anyway, hogging ALL available memory which makes programs load
>>   s l o w e r  while trying to get memory for it's process. Perhaps if
>> there was a way to limit the amount of memory used by the cache/buffer
>> system it would help speed up the startup of programs.

>Actually, the cache/buffer memory makes the system go faster. The more you 
>have there, the faster.

>That's why the second time you load OOo, without the quickstarter, it 
>loads faster: it doesn't need to read from disk, it is already in memory.

Right.  Assuming it works like 'doze, the first load causes a memory to
memory copy to create a cached version.  This should happen very quickly.
The majority of the time spent on the initial load is getting the binary(s)
off of the disk, which would happen even if there were no caching done.

Greg Wallace



-- 
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]