Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Nothing looks unusual there. Linux always uses almost all of the RAM. Even if you built a monster with 2 Gb of Ram, you'd probably see that it is using 1.9+Gb within half an hour of starting up. We'll need somebody with more knowledge than me to explain why this happends, but it isn't unusual. Just because your Ram is used doesn't mean the computer is slower - can you provide any info on what it is that is happening slower?
Your 2nd post makes more sense - a failed start attempt will hog resources, and will keep working until it gives you an error or you kill it. For whatever reason your kaffein wasn't giving an error, so it took you killing the process for it to free up the memory.
ps -ef or ps-aux depending on distro is often your best friend.
Originally posted by jschiwal If the process are named kaffiene, you can use the killall command rather than having to use the kill command with each process number.
killall -9 kaffiene
I wouldn't recommend -9 as the de facto method of killing something - it makes no attempt to exit gracefully and free resources. -15 is a better bet and is the default when calling killall with no parameters:
killall (or kill) -9 sends the process the SIGKILL signal which quits immediately with no clean-up operation. killall (or kill) -15 sends the process the SIGTERM signal which instructs it to exit gracefully.
i think the reason for Linux 'using up' all of the available memory is to do with caching... whereby stuff is left hanging around for quick retrieval later if necessary.. but the 'cached' memory is actually freely available for other use if required.. i think that's the gist of it, but i'm no programmer, so if anyone can explain further, i'm sure it would help a few of us!
The thing to watch is swap space. When the system has to swap a lot that's when performance takes a really big hit. A little swapping is OK, but when you see a lot of swap space used, that's when you know you need to invest in more RAM.