From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 12 13:17:02 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E1516A41F for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:17:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from mail1.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail1.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD02B43D46 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:17:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: (qmail 324 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2006 13:17:00 -0000 Received: from dsl092-078-145.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO be-well.ilk.org) ([66.92.78.145]) (envelope-sender ) by mail1.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 12 Jan 2006 13:17:00 -0000 Received: by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 84EBC28423; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:16:59 -0500 (EST) Sender: lowell@be-well.ilk.org To: Wojciech Puchar References: <20060111112654.O11627@chylonia.3miasto.net> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 12 Jan 2006 08:16:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20060111112654.O11627@chylonia.3miasto.net> Message-ID: <44irsptwl0.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Lines: 17 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: limiting Buf memory X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:17:02 -0000 Wojciech Puchar writes: > on my 1GB machine: > > Mem: 529M Active, 209M Inact, 149M Wired, 38M Cache, 109M Buf, 1772K Free > > while "Cache" is dynamic, Buf is not and never goes down. > > how can i get it down to somehow like 40MB? I can't think of a way to do that. On the other hand, I can't think of a reason you would want to, either. You have plenty of memory available, so I can't imagine why you'd want to take the performance hit of reducing the buffer space. And: buffer use *is* dynamic, it just tends to be more stable than cache.