From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Apr 29 07:27:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA18450 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 07:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tor-adm1.nbc.netcom.ca (taob@tor-adm1.nbc.netcom.ca [207.181.89.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA18445 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 07:27:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (taob@localhost) by tor-adm1.nbc.netcom.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA06836; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:26:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:26:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Tao To: David Greenman cc: FREEBSD-STABLE Subject: Re: Memory usage on NFS server In-Reply-To: <199704290720.AAA11888@implode.root.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, David Greenman wrote: > ... > >Mem: 78M Active, 4984K Inact, 17M Wired, 25M Cache, 8343K Buf, 616K Free > > The numbers lie; don't believe them. :-) It's not as simple as > looking at the "cache" number - pages in "active" and "inactive" are > also part of the file cache. But in the end, FreeBSD *will* try to use as much physical memory as possible as a file cache, regardless of what `top' reports? The owner of the machine thought 128MB was overkill for just an NFS server, but I assured him all of it would be put to good use. ;-) -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob@netcom.ca) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"