64 bit info
Karl F. Larsen
klarsen1 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 3 19:59:21 UTC 2010
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:20, Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> top - 08:14:07 up 12:28, 3 users, load average: 0.43, 0.18, 0.11
>> Tasks: 145 total, 1 running, 144 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0
>> Cpu(s): 6.0%us, 3.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 90.7%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi,
>> 0.0%si, 0.0%st
>> Mem: 1796700k total, 1451832k used, 344868k free,
>> 139252k buffers
>> Swap: 1959920k total, 0k used, 1959920k free,
>> 757764k cached
>> Notice I have 2 GB of RAM and the 64bit 9.10 is using just
>> 1.45 GB of the RAM. I wasted $92 on new fast RAM which I was
>> assured you need.
>> From these measurements it is clear that 64 bit runs fine
>> with just 2 GB of RAM. The people claiming you need 4GB are wrong.
> Yes, anyone saying you "need" 4GB+ to run a 64bit OS are wrong. I
> happily run them all day long on 1GB or more. HOWEVER, the reality is
> that you don't get any real benefit from 64bit addressing until you
> are running 4GB or more RAM.
> OTOH, statistics from top on a system that is idle are useless.
> Especially WRT memory usage. Linux does not utilize memory like
> Windows does, and any linux system, after running for a while, should
> show > 75% memory usage just by the nature of how Linux uses RAM.
> Your 1.5GB are't all being used, a good bit of that is simply cached
> pages. That's part of how Linux gets its speed. It caches everything
> it can in RAM, clearing out the cached data in favor of fresh data
> when needed. It's completely possible to have a system doing
> absolutely nothing show 99% memory usage.
Yes and my computer was doing little since top was a major
CPU user...but I was surprised to see it was happy with the
old 2 GB RAM.
I will be getting 4 GB more RAM in a few days. It is 2 sticks
of 2GB each. So I will experiment with this 9.10 64bit and see
if I can determine what improves.
Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
Key ID = 3951B48D
More information about the ubuntu-users