On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:52 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:45 -0400, William L. Maltby wrote: > ><snip> > > Now, if I treat all those numbers ending in "m" as megabytes, it doesn't > > take long to see that I've been lied to somewhere along the way. Or > > alternatively, I'm dense and "Just Don't Get It" (TM). > > Executables aren't copied into swap - virtual memory is allocated but > they page in on demand directly from the binary file. > So there really > are megs that could swap in if other portions of those programs are > executed even though it isn't in the swap partition you designated. Just to make sure I'm following here. There are still 3 types of program segments: text, data and bss. Text (and data) never need to be swapped because they are (theoretically) never modified. Bss may need to be swapped. Are you saying that what it is showing is what is potentially available if all swappable memory is swapped out and the "binary" is also discarded (maintaining only a small stack of program counters and other stack data)? If so, it sounds in agreement with what Kai has suggested? If that is the case, maybe there is nothing to track down? Everything is operating as intended and it is only that no one has bothered to make it perfectly clear to the user(s), like me? -- Bill
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
