On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 11:06, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >
> >>Mem: 248088k total, 240544k used, 7544k free, 18188k
> >>buffers
> >>Swap: 524120k total, 104304k used, 419816k free, 59040k
> >>cached
> >>
> >>
> >> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> >> 3362 jmccarty 15 0 110m 43m 18m S 1.3 18.0 8:43.37
> >>thunderbird-bin
> >> 4159 root 15 0 178m 32m 4904 S 7.0 13.4 992:47.66 X
> >> 5214 jmccarty 16 0 68496 20m 13m S 0.0 8.6 0:01.91
> >>mozilla-bin
> >>
> >
> >
> > I have learned a lot reading comments on this, so can I add that
> > for my machines (512Mb and 1Gb) Xorg is less than half the size.
> >
> > 2285 root 18 0 74316 18m 7972 R 60.8 3.6 1:20.31 Xorg
> > 10335 murray 15 0 219m 37m 19m S 16.9 7.5 0:49.92 evolution
> >
> > This is for 1600 by 1200, millions of colours, double bffered.
> > Isn't the X usage rather high?
>
> Wait a minute. You have a 512MB RAM machine and 7.5%. I have a
> 256MB RAM machine and 13.4% usage. That's the same amount of RAM.
You're looking at his evolution not his Xorg vs. your X.
The RES or RSS columns of top are the significant ones. That
shows what's currently in physical RAM at the time. You can
have huge inactive portions of the code either paged out or
not loaded yet without much impact on anything else.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
