From owner-freebsd-chat  Wed Jul 17 12:34:27 1996
Return-Path: owner-chat
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA12201
          for chat-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 12:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA12195
          for <FreeBSD-chat@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 12:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.7.5/8.6.9) id OAA22819; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 14:33:59 -0500 (EST)
From: John Dyson <dyson@dyson.iquest.net>
Message-Id: <199607171933.OAA22819@dyson.iquest.net>
Subject: Re: Opinions?
To: obrien@cs.ucdavis.edu
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 14:33:59 -0500 (EST)
Cc: FreeBSD-chat@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199607171851.LAA05848@kongur> from "obrien@cs.ucdavis.edu" at Jul 17, 96 11:51:24 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > Installed nt4.0 beta on a machine last night just to have a look.  It's 
> > Windows NT 97.  But the machine, sitting idle, doing nothing was 
> > consuming 15.5 megs of RAM.  There were no applications running, no icon 
> > menus up.  The only thing up was th one utility to let me look at 
> 
> I wonder if they pre-allocate a large cache buffer, and then reduce the
> cache when the demain for core increases (like some Unix's do).  If so,
> then it's no big deal that it was consuming 15.5 megs of core sitting
> idle.
> 
Or they could be keeping program images, disk cache and everything
that is accessed around.  Some people have gotten upset about the small amount
of "free" memory on FreeBSD, until they realize that it is more
efficient to cache as much as you can :-).  Some of our "cache" memory
becomes "active", but is quickly made available for other uses as needed.

John