Forum Moderators: bakedjake
People been telling me that Linux really shouldn't have as much "load" (system resources used) as windows, yet it has a tad bit more? BELIEVE ME that I'm not worried about it, is it just that I'm misinformed?
Also, the major load of linux is the GUI, ie, KDE am I right?
TYIA,
./Toby
Fictitioous example: Imagine an OS which can dynamically change hte amount of resources available to the system. It would ALWAYS be 0% resources free, as It would simply remove unused ones and create new onces as needed.
OSes like windows and Linux do things in very different ways, and you cannot always directly compare things they call by the same name... apples and oranges and all....
SN
depends on who uses the term. I don't think there's a standard generic definition for that word on Linux.
In the case of RAM, Linux will just fill up anything that isn't needed otherwise, and use it as disk cache. In the ideal case, this means that *all* RAM is put to productive use all the time. There's no benefit in having those memory bars sit in your box without actually doing something with them, is there? As soon as your processes start to require more memory, the disk cache will shrink accordingly to accomodate them.
Thanks for the reply. Though I'm a bit seasoned with Linux (More Unix and Os X) I thought that the processes and things used to accomplished them entailed what the resources percentage was.
