Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:06:44 -0400 From: Jesse Guardiani <jesse@wingnet.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: `top` process memory usage: SIZE vs RES Message-ID: <bjsuf5$t1b$1@sea.gmane.org> References: <bjqs64$6i9$1@sea.gmane.org> <20030911231742.GA61528@dan.emsphone.com> <bjsjdd$vgh$2@sea.gmane.org> <20030912163954.GC61528@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Sep 12), Jesse Guardiani said: >> Dan Nelson wrote: >> > In the last episode (Sep 11), Jesse Guardiani said: >> > >> >> 2.) What, exactly, is RES? `man top` describes it as this: >> >> "RES is the current amount of resident memory", but does >> >> that mean RES is included in SIZE? Or does that mean that >> >> RES should be counted in addition to SIZE? >> > >> > RES the amount of SIZE that it currently in core >> >> OK. To clarify, you mean core kernel memory here? >> If so, how is that significant? Why should I care? >> >> In other words, why would I ever want to know that? > > core meaning physical memory; user memory in this case. OK. And how does core, or user memory differ from SIZE memory then? If X = SIZE - RES, where is X stored? > Processes can > lock kernel memory, but there's no easy way of listing that (it's > usually a small amount held in pipe or socket buffers and is > short-lived). The name "core" came from when memory bits were ferrite > rings magnetized by wires running through them. > > http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/core.html Wow. That's a really cool bit of history. I don't quite understand how a core is "switched", but I'm sure it must have worked. -- Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator WingNET Internet Services, P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605 423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f) http://www.wingnet.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bjsuf5$t1b$1>