[Asterisk-Users] Buffers and Caches and realizations (Was: 1.0_stable ....)

[Bob Klepfer]

Re: Memory:

>The cool thing is Linux can just discard the cached entries when a
>application needs real RAM. Don't worry about your RAM usage until you
>see swap climbing and/or the buffers and cache dropping down to near
>zero. 
>

Yes, yes,  I knew about caches versus HD access, but I didn't realize 
what types of cache there were and what their uses were.  It struck me 
when you mentioned "buffers and caches," as they are labeled in top, 
that a buffer shouldn't stay full, and why should my bloody system have 
150M of unflushed buffers?  But, of course the labels meant "buffer 
cache."  I went looking for some more info on this and found this, if 
anyone's interested:

http://www.linux-tutorial.info/cgi-bin/display.pl?310&0&317&0&3

I _am_ curious how much overhead is involved in deciding what to dump, 
dumping the page, then allocation, and if that could have any effect on 
time critical applications with a recent linux kernel.  I'm betting not 
much if at all, but I'll read up on it when I have the time.




[OT]:

>Maybe if this subject hadn't been covered 3 times in less weeks. You
>seem to first have missed the previous comments on this subject, and
>second you could have overlooked a one line non personal vent when there
>was a couple of paragraphs that explained clearly what you needed to
>know. 
>

[You know Critch, I have to apologize - my impression of you, beyond the 
time you bummed our floorspace at DragonCon, was of a self-important 
suffer-not-the-newb kind of guy.  It was a lot of that kind of sniping 
that led me to blow off the NLUG list a while back, and my daily runs 
through the * list traffic---more skimming really...not enough time for 
this and work too--- seemed to confirm it.  I just went looking through 
the archive, though, and noticed far fewer harping messages from you 
than I thought.  I think I fixated on the "read more before you ask 
again" posts because you tend to <snip> more and top post less making 
them more quickly readable, and because I pay more attention to the 
general questions.  My "sanctimonious bullshit" remark was meant to 
encompass _all_ the harp that I thought you enganged in, which turns out 
to be much less than I thought.  Fancy that.

By the way, do you know where that mythical kiss-my-ass list is hosted, 
and how much they charge?]

Bob