Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!warwick!lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!hgmp.mrc.ac.uk!news.dcs.warwick.ac.uk!str-ccsun!not-for-mail
From: nbc@vulture.dmem.strath.ac.uk (Neil Brendan Clark)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Huge caches?
Date: 27 May 1996 03:28:43 +0100
Organization: University of Strathclyde
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4ob40r$556@vulture.dmem.strath.ac.uk>
References: <4nsijm$6a9@pelican.unf.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vulture.dmem.strath.ac.uk
Cliff Addy <caddy@osprey.unf.edu> wrote:
>
>Is this normal? I *hope* those caches are dynamic.
Completely normal, and yes, the cache is dynamic. I have found the memory
management on FreeBSD to be excellent - the cache and VM are somehow
unified, which seems to allow seemingly insane configuration ratios
of real to virtual memory, for example my machine has 16M of real RAM
and 160M of virtual. While the major reason for this was to allow me
to move to larger amounts of real RAM without repartitioning the system
in the future, I have actually come pretty close to using 80% of it and
the system was not *that* bad.
If you think about it a bit, unifying the cache and VM seems like an
entirely logical thing to do...
--
Hey dork, | Neil Clark
Eat this with a fork! | Transparent Telepresence Group
| <http://telepresence.dmem.strath.ac.uk/>