From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Jul 17 13:24:28 1996 Return-Path: owner-chat Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA16615 for chat-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 13:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yucca.cs.odu.edu (root@yucca.cs.odu.edu [128.82.4.6]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA16593 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 13:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fog.cs.odu.edu (bowden@fog.cs.odu.edu [128.82.4.35]) by yucca.cs.odu.edu (8.7.3/8.6.4) with SMTP id QAA09235; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 16:20:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 16:22:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Jamie Bowden To: John Dyson cc: obrien@cs.ucdavis.edu, FreeBSD-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Opinions? In-Reply-To: <199607171933.OAA22819@dyson.iquest.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, John Dyson wrote: > 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. Then why only take 1/3 of your free available RAM to do it? I am looking at my memory usage under freebsd right now, and all but 600k is claimed by the cache, and active programs. I don't give M$ that much credit. They make some nice stuff, but it's expensive and usually suffers from at least one major design flaw. And everyone I know who uses NT says it's a bloated pig. :) Jamie I have my finger on the pulse of the planet.