If this isn't exactly what you wanted, please try our Search (there's a LOT of techy and non-techy stuff here about Linux, Unix, Mac OS X and just computers in general!):
References: <0fbcdv8e9c3bsuiefgn27h4l2lukihaet8@4ax.com> From: rodsmith@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) Subject: Re: interpreting 'free' (memory) output Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 14:54:03 GMT In article <3ED639F3.FDE59021@sympatico.ca>, John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@sympatico.ca> writes: > Evan Cooch wrote: >> >> I currently am running RH 7.3 on an old PIII box, with 256 MB RAM. The >> machine basically works as a web and mySQL server. >> >> I noticed the machine acting a bit sluggish (purely qualitative >> assessment), so I ran 'free' to see how much memory is allocated, and >> to what - I got the following response: > > [Note line wrapping adjusted from original post] > >> total used free shared buffers cached >> Mem: 255644 213792 41852 0 104976 63904 >> -/+ buffers/cache: 44912 210732 >> Swap: 264592 21436 243156 >> > Also, you have 104MB in buffers and 64MB in the cache. (Last two > columns of the first line.) Those can be dumped to free up space for > other things if needed. So (as the second line says) you effectively > have 210MB free and 45MB used after adjusting for cache and buffers. > It's really those second line figures that count, IMHO. Just to elaborate a bit, the Linux kernel is designed to use most of the available RAM for buffers and cache. Thus, few systems will have very large numbers in the "free" column on the "Mem:" line of "free" output. Mostly those numbers will be high immediately after booting, then drop as you use the disk. As John-Paul Stewart says, it's the "-/+ buffers/cache" numbers that are better indicators of how much RAM is in use.
Swap has a tendency to get used for storage when there's a "burst" in demand for memory, and then stuff stays in swap if it's not needed again. It looks like that's what's happened to the OP, with a small amount of swap space being used (8.1%) and little RAM in use by programs (17.6%). Of course, a dynamic look at memory use over time is more informative than a single slice, but if this is typical, there's no need to add more RAM to this system. If these numbers fluctuate a lot, with frequent spikes in RAM use, then more RAM might help the system get through those spike periods. -- Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking
/Bofcusm/2118.html copyright 1997-2004 (various authors) All Rights Reserved
Have you tried Searching this site?
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X support by phone, email or on-site: Support Rates
This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more. We appreciate comments and article submissions.
Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.
Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.
We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.
Click here to add your comments
Wed Nov 11 14:56:22 2009: Subject: RE: slow server Milo
So if it wasn't memory, then did you ever figure out why your server became slow?
Wed Nov 11 15:08:01 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
You do realize that's a post from 2003?
Don't miss responses! Subscribe to Comments by RSS or by Email
Click here to add your comments
If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar