Hi All,
Thanks a lot for such a detailed help.It simple awesome!.Will update you
about the behavior once I do the testing.
Regards
-A

On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Chris Kukuchka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> From: "Arnab Ganguly" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > >It up to the OS to mark the freed areas as free or use it as a
> > >filesystem buffer or whatever buffer, as long as the memory isn't
> needed
> > >by applications.
> >
> > Thanks for the update.Actually when I do top -p on the process id I do
> see
> > memory consumed by Apache is very less but over the time when I do free
> -m
> > the RAM gets reduced.
>
> As Robert indicated, a running Linux system will attempt to make use of
> all physical memory.  This is because it is undesirable to leave memory
> unused (wasted) when it can be put to good use for things such as disk
> cache.
>
> Google "linux memory management" for more information.
>
> > I wonder can be this case happen free -m is 0 and the
> > machine will crash or something....
>
> Typically, you will see free memory get close to 0 and stay there.  It
> will usually not go past that point unless you have your machine overloaded
> in some fashion.  In most cases, even if free memory dips to 0, you will
> still have your swap memory available.  At that point, system performance
> will start to degrade, but you will still be running.
>
> > I was thinking may be the Apache was eating up the RAM
>
> To see how much physical memory (in kilobytes) is being used by Apache,
> use this command sequence:
>
> ps -e -o rss,comm | fgrep httpd | awk '{sum+=$1} END {print sum}'
>
> It is not unusual to see memory go up as an Apache process matures.  This
> is especially true if you are running modules like PHP or Perl which have
> the potential to load many helper modules.  A quick review of a handful of
> running machines available to me show 2-18MB per process is not unusual.  Of
> those, PHP users are typically 10-12MB higher than non-PHP users.  YMMV.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Kukuchka
> Sequoia Group, Inc.
>
>
>

Reply via email to