Re: physical memory vs. real memory
From: Florian Anwander (spam.interessiert.nicht_at_mnet-online.de)
Date: 07/19/05
- Next message: Pavel Pokorny: "future of hp pa-risc processors?"
- Previous message: Alan D Johnson: "Re: Interex is gone, the end is near"
- In reply to: jochen_r_at_gmx.de: "physical memory vs. real memory"
- Next in thread: jochen_r_at_gmx.de: "Re: physical memory vs. real memory"
- Reply: jochen_r_at_gmx.de: "Re: physical memory vs. real memory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:47:08 +0200
Hi
The "memory management whitepaper". should give you some information
Once it was in /usr/share/doc/mem_mgt.txt; don't know whether this
exists in actual versions (And I do not pretend, that I understood it
completely ;-) ).
As far as I remember real memory is basically the memory, a user process
can use for code or data.
Florian
jochen_r@gmx.de wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in sam (or as well in top) I can see two different parameters, one is
> called physical memory and the other one is real memory. So far I used
> these terms equally. I still assume that physical memory denotes to the
> hardware mem chips I put in the server, but was is real memory?
>
> Any idea?
>
> Thanks,
> Jochen
>
- Next message: Pavel Pokorny: "future of hp pa-risc processors?"
- Previous message: Alan D Johnson: "Re: Interex is gone, the end is near"
- In reply to: jochen_r_at_gmx.de: "physical memory vs. real memory"
- Next in thread: jochen_r_at_gmx.de: "Re: physical memory vs. real memory"
- Reply: jochen_r_at_gmx.de: "Re: physical memory vs. real memory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|