Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
|
Notices |
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.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
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.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
|
|
|
07-13-2006, 08:40 AM
|
#16
|
Moderator
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Central Florida 20 minutes from Disney World
Distribution: Slackware®
Posts: 13,956
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxhippy
thanks for all the info. My current setup of a 486 kernel on a P1 works fine....I just don't like how most of my memory is being used according to top. I was told that a 386 kernel would use less memory. I do have a memtest program on a live system rescue cd that I'll use to see if alls ok if I put in another RAM chip.
Could I mess up my pc permanently if I put in too much RAM?
|
Hi,
You are not interpreting top properly! Why do you think the linux os is multitasking or processing? The memory management for linux is great! Would you rather have your memory sit idle rather than active?
Who ever told you a i386 kernel would use less memory had to be talking about the kernel image not the management. The memory management for the i386 is not the same as the i486. Another major difference between the i386 and i486 is the co-processor is integrated on the i486 with the i386 the floating point co-processor is a separate chip.
The i486 pipeline is the speed advantage for the i486, the instructions sets are the same for the i386 or i486. The fourth generation i486 has a major speed advantage over the i386 because of the pipeline.
You should read some background information about the intel series processors, check out processors.
Hearsay will only get you into trouble!
|
|
|
07-13-2006, 03:31 PM
|
#17
|
Senior Member
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Distribution: Xubuntu, Mythbuntu, Lubuntu, Picuntu, Mint 18.1, Debian Jessie
Posts: 1,207
Original Poster
Rep:
|
I was thinking I was misinterpreting memory in top wrong since I've been hearing for years that Linux is good with memory management. I've noticed in top that the memory always increases but never decreases again till you reboot...get the info on the memory from top before startx, after startx, and after closing startx and you will see what I mean. The memory must refresh once startx closes, but top doesn't reflect that.
|
|
|
07-13-2006, 03:52 PM
|
#18
|
Member
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, California
Distribution: CentOS 5.3, FreeBSD 7.2, Fedora 11
Posts: 83
Rep:
|
Not 100% sure, but I think it's just the way Linux's memory management is. It keeps everything it cache incase you need it again, and if not flushes it for something else requesting memory.
Not 100% sure though, but that's how it was explained to me when I was a n00b.
|
|
|
07-13-2006, 04:01 PM
|
#19
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2003
Posts: 360
Rep:
|
Yes, it's something like that. And when too much memory is requested at once, like running 2 or more programs which require alot of memory at once, the old cached data is transfered to the swap. I have 512MB DDR 333Mhz PC2700 RAM with 1024MB swap space and in all my time using Linux the max use of my swap space was 1MB, and that was when I was compiling glibc from source, using OpenOffice, music, IM, copying some files from my NTFS partition and running another program which name I can't remember now. And I've never felt that my computer moves slower than it should. On Window$ I did feel my memory was not managed properly, and there too had 1024MB fixed Pagefile which was used at least half mostly all the time.
|
|
|
07-13-2006, 08:38 PM
|
#20
|
Senior Member
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Distribution: Xubuntu, Mythbuntu, Lubuntu, Picuntu, Mint 18.1, Debian Jessie
Posts: 1,207
Original Poster
Rep:
|
guess that's why Win experiences the blue screen of death and Linux keeps on humming away! Anyway, I added an old 128 MB SDRAM stick I had and now it doesn't cache as often as it was with 256 MB physical memory now. Thanks for all the help!
|
|
|
07-13-2006, 08:44 PM
|
#21
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2003
Posts: 360
Rep:
|
Exactly. So don't waste time worring about memory management as that really isn't a problem with Linux... When and if you'll get to 512MB or more you will hardly need a swap space at all.
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:43 PM.
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|