Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Nov 2008 22:55 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 337175
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-09-03
I think a contributing factor to this drama is the way in which windows reports memory that is being used for caching and buffers. I wish they presented in in something along the lines of "free" in UNIX. Here is an example:

total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 3371692 1307396 2064296 0 62924 743724
-/+ buffers/cache: 500748 2870944
Swap: 4192760 0 4192760
(Sorry OS news doesn't support a mono-spaced formatting, like the code tag)
In any case, I also think it is important to make a distinction between memory being used for cache and the memory the kernel is being used for object pools. A system under memory pressure gives up cache freely, so memory should be used aggressively for disk cache. However, memory used for internal object pools is often (read implementation specificly) not available to be made free upon demand. I have gotten the the impression from Vista that they assume that since now days memory is cheap everything should eat up memory for extra pools. This is "just" an impression, since it is not OSS I can't just look