Date: 12 Sep 2003 12:58:58 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com> To: jesse@wingnet.net Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: `top` process memory usage: SIZE vs RES Message-ID: <44znharlil.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <bjsjdd$vgh$2@sea.gmane.org> References: <bjqs64$6i9$1@sea.gmane.org> <20030911231742.GA61528@dan.emsphone.com> <bjsjdd$vgh$2@sea.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jesse Guardiani <jesse@wingnet.net> writes: > Dan Nelson wrote: > > > In the last episode (Sep 11), Jesse Guardiani said: > >> 1.) Where is my Free memory going? I can't account for it > >> in the SIZE and RES columns of the various processes. > >> These are relatively constant. > > > > Disk cache. > > I thought it might be something like that. My large test > messages are being written to disk over and over and over > as the message travels down the pipline. Makes a great case > for installing a RAM disk. :) No, probably not. The OS disk-caching is probably *more* efficient than letting the data go into a RAM disk at each stage. Considerably so, in fact. > > > >> 2.) What, exactly, is RES? `man top` describes it as this: > >> "RES is the current amount of resident memory", but does > >> that mean RES is included in SIZE? Or does that mean that > >> RES should be counted in addition to SIZE? > > > > RES the amount of SIZE that it currently in core > > OK. To clarify, you mean core kernel memory here? No, it's not in kernel space. "Core" just refers to RAM: the term is held over from the days when main memory was constructed out of little magnetic cores in a wire matrix. > If so, how is that significant? Why should I care? If your system starts swapping heavily, that will often be the clue that tells you why. Just one example.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44znharlil.fsf>