4 ms·

I'm sure FreeBSD is probably better at memory management than Linux (considering his Desktop issues) but wouldn't it make sense for the OS to nearly max out mem

by naner 12y ago

I'm sure FreeBSD is probably better at memory management than Linux (considering his Desktop issues) but wouldn't it make sense for the OS to nearly max out memory usage as long as applications can make use of it?

LeonidasXIV 12y ago
> wouldn't it make sense for the OS to nearly max out memory usage as long as applications can make use of it? Yes, Linux uses spare memory extensively as caches which can be dumped immediately as applications need the memory for usage. Unfortunaltely, he didn't mention how he measured memory usage on both OSes.
- Flow 12y ago
  Oh come on! This is the second comment in this thread that seem to claim Linux is so special and glorious. FreeBSD definitely does this, maybe even 3BSD or 4BSD did this. Functionality like this is basic OS design knowledge.
  - CHY872 12y ago
    Yes, exactly right - so it makes his conclusions sound fishy. I don't think anyone's trying to say that Linux is so special and glorious (beyond BSD).
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - danieldk 12y ago
    Oh come on! This is the second comment in this thread that seem to claim Linux is so special and glorious. FreeBSD definitely does this, maybe even 3BSD or 4BSD did this. The modern VM architecture was definitely introduced after 3BSD or 4BSD, since NetBSD only introduced a unified buffer cache in 2000 and is also derived from 4.4BSD. [1] https://www.usenix.org/legacy/publications/library/proceedings/usenix2000/freenix/full_papers/silvers/silvers_html/ https://www.usenix.org/legacy/publications/library/proceedin...
- nileshgr 12y ago
  I did exclude the cache part when measuring the memory usage. And they were measured using standard tools like top, ps, etc. Most likely I'd have used the system monitor that comes with KDE.