From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 03:28:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 03:28:07 -0400 Received: from mail.muc.eurocyber.net ([195.143.108.5]:6895 "EHLO mail.muc.eurocyber.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 03:27:59 -0400 Message-ID: <3B2EFEEE.18DEEC02@TeraPort.de> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:27:42 +0200 From: "Martin.Knoblauch" Organization: TeraPort GmbH X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.5-ac13 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Morton CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: VM: Buffer vs. Cache In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Morton wrote: > > > > > So, what actually is the difference between Buffered and Cached. > >Apparently quite a lot of the pages that are Cached in the evening are > >Buffered 9 houres later. > > Think about what happens in the meantime. Most distros install maintenance > scripts which run late at night (usually at midnight and/or 4am), which > perform heavy disk activity as they update databases and scan for > file-permissions security holes. Heavy disk activity usually means an > increase in buffer utilisation. Since most files are only "touched" once, > the cache is shrunk as it aren't being used very much. > thanks to all who set me straight. Should have thought of the nightly stuff myself. Martin -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Martin Knoblauch | email: Martin.Knoblauch@TeraPort.de TeraPort GmbH | Phone: +49-89-510857-309 C+ITS | Fax: +49-89-510857-111 http://www.teraport.de | Mobile: +49-170-4904759