| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfs and Linux Linux 2.6.22 and Memory |
| From: | Jason White <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:13:30 +1000 |
| In-reply-to: | <773373.46803.qm@web35703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> |
| Mail-followup-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <46F2E001.4040107@sandeen.net> <773373.46803.qm@web35703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) |
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 07:14:23PM -0700, Mariella Petrini wrote: > I was mostly curious, especially because In some cases > after having created all the files I may not need to > have all of them cached and I may need to availability > of the RAM for other purposes. I may be wrong, but as I understand it, if the RAM is needed for other purposes, cache pages are made available automatically and the size of the cache is reduced as the RAM is allocated by processes. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Questions about testing the Filestream feature, Hxsrmeng |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | PARTIAL TAKE 970382 - untangle spinlock macros, donaldd |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfs and Linux Linux 2.6.22 and Memory, Mariella Petrini |
| Next by Thread: | TAKE 970841 - kill unnessecary ioops indirection, Lachlan McIlroy |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |