| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeremy Carroll <jeremy(dot)carroll(at)networkedinsights(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Memory reporting on CentOS Linux |
| Date: | 2009-08-15 15:24:45 |
| Message-ID: | 13653.1250349885@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jeremy Carroll <jeremy(dot)carroll(at)networkedinsights(dot)com> writes:
> I am thoroughly confused that TOP is reporting that I have 99% of my
> physical RAM free, while the process list suggests that some are
> taking ~8Gb of Resident (Physical) Memory. Any explanation as to why
> TOP is reporting this? I have a PostgreSQL 8.3 server with 48Gb of RAM
> on a Dell R610 server that is reporting that 46.5GB of RAM is free.
Exactly where do you draw that conclusion from? I see "free 138M".
It does look like there's something funny about top's accounting for
shared memory --- maybe it's counting it as "cached"? It's hardly
unusual for top to give bogus numbers in the presence of shared memory,
of course, but this seems odd :-(. With such large amounts of RAM
involved I wonder if there could be an overflow problem. You might file
a bug against top in whatever distro you are using.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeremy Carroll | 2009-08-15 15:39:40 | Re: Memory reporting on CentOS Linux |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Carroll | 2009-08-15 14:25:45 | Re: Memory reporting on CentOS Linux |