Re: extremly low memory usage

I'm just watching gnome-system-monoitor. Which after careful
consideration.....and looking at dstat means I'm on CRACK....GSM isn't
showing cached memory usage....I asume that the cache memory usage is
where data off of the disks would be cached...?



memory output from dstat is this for  a few seconds:

---procs--- ------memory-usage----- ---paging-- --disk/sda----disk/sdb- ----swap--- ----total-cpu-usage----
run blk new|_used _buff _cach _free|__in_ _out_|_read write:_read write|_used _free|usr sys idl wai hiq siq
  0   0   0|1336M   10M 4603M   17M| 490B  833B|3823B 3503k:1607k 4285k| 160k 2048M|  4   1  89   7   0   0
  1   0   0|1337M   10M 4600M   18M|   0     0 |   0     0 :   0   464k| 160k 2048M| 25   0  75   0   0   0
  1   0   0|1337M   10M 4600M   18M|   0     0 |   0     0 :   0     0 | 160k 2048M| 25   0  75   0   0   0
  1   0   0|1337M   10M 4600M   18M|   0     0 |   0    48k:   0     0 | 160k 2048M| 25   0  75   0   0   0
  1   0   0|1337M   10M 4600M   18M|   0     0 |   0     0 :   0     0 | 160k 2048M| 25   0  75   0   0   0
  1   0   0|1337M   10M 4600M   18M|   0     0 |   0   132k:   0     0 | 160k 2048M| 25   0  75   0   0   0
  1   0   0|1337M   10M 4600M   18M|   0     0 |   0    36k:   0     0 | 160k 2048M| 25   0  75   0   0   0
  1   0   0|1337M   10M 4600M   18M|   0     0 |   0     0 :   0     0 | 160k 2048M| 25   0  75   0   0   0
  1   0   0|1337M   10M 4600M   18M|   0     0 |   0    12k:   0     0 | 160k 2048M| 25   0  75   0   0   0
  1   0   0|1337M   10M 4600M   18M|   0     0 |   0     0 :   0     0 | 160k 2048M| 25   0  75   0   0   0
  2   0   0|1353M   10M 4585M   18M|   0     0 |   0     0 :   0     0 | 160k 2048M| 25   1  75   0   0   0
  1   0   0|1321M   10M 4616M   19M|   0     0 |   0     0 :   0     0 | 160k 2048M| 18   8  74   0   0   0
  1   0   0|1326M   10M 4614M   17M|   0     0 |   0     0 :4096B    0 | 160k 2048M| 16  10  74   1   0   0
  1   0   0|1330M   10M 4609M   17M|   0     0 |   0    12k:4096B    0 | 160k 2048M| 17   9  74   0   0   0
  0   1   0|1343M   10M 4596M   17M|   0     0 |   0     0 :   0   316M| 160k 2048M|  5  10  74  11   0   1
  0   1   0|1339M   10M 4596M   21M|   0     0 |   0     0 :   0     0 | 160k 2048M|  0   0  74  25   0   1
  0   2   0|1334M   10M 4596M   25M|   0     0 |   0  4096B:   0     0 | 160k 2048M|  0   0  54  44   0   1
  1   0   0|1326M   10M 4596M   34M|   0     0 |   0     0 :   0   364k| 160k 2048M|  4   1  60  34   0   1
  1   0   0|1290M   10M 4596M   70M|   0     0 |   0    12k:   0     0 | 160k 2048M| 24   1  75   0   0   0
  1   0   0|1301M   10M 4596M   59M|   0     0 |   0    20k:   0     0 | 160k 2048M| 21   4  75   0   0   0
  1   0   0|1312M   10M 4596M   48M|   0     0 |   0     0 :   0     0 | 160k 2048M| 22   4  75   0   0   0
  1   0   0|1323M   10M 4596M   37M|   0     0 |   0     0 :   0    24k| 160k 2048M| 21   4  75   0   0   0
  1   0   0|1334M   10M 4596M   25M|   0     0 |   0     0 :   0    56k| 160k 2048M| 21   4  75   0   0   0



On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 16:07 -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
> Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
> > Rebuild in progress with just ext3 on the raid array...will see if this
> > helps the access times. If it doesn't I'll mess with the stripe size. I
> > have REINDEXED, CLUSTERED, tablespaced and cached with 'cat table/index
> >
> >>/dev/null' none of this seems to have helped, or even increased my
> >
> > memory usage. argh! The only thing about this new system that I'm
> > unfamiliar with is the array setup and LVM, which is why I think that's
> > where the issue is. clustering and indexing as well as vacuum etc are
> > things that I do and have been aware of for sometime. Perhaps slony is a
> > factor, but I really don't see it causing problems on index read speed
> > esp. when it's not running.
> >
> > thanx for your help, I really appreciate it.
> > -jj-
> >
>
> By the way, how are you measuring memory usage? Can you give the output
> of that command, just to make sure you are reading it correctly.
>
> John
> =:->
>
--
Speak softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword.