From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Jun 23 10:56:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA00598 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:56:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from greeves.mfn.org (greeves.mfn.org [204.238.179.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA00576 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:56:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from measl@greeves.mfn.org) Received: (from root@localhost) by greeves.mfn.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA04220; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:59:14 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from measl) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:59:14 -0500 (CDT) From: User Measl Message-Id: <199806231759.MAA04220@greeves.mfn.org> To: jonc@pinnacle.co.nz, measl@greeves.mfn.org Subject: Re: Memory Leak in 2.2.5R NFS Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I am determining usage through TOP. Also, AFAIK, the kernel does *not* "eat up as much memory as possible for buffers". I believe that is a Windoze trait... According to the Handbook, there is an actual (somewhat fixed) algorithm to determine RAM capture. But then, who knows, I could be wrong... J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message