FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-10-2008, 05:01 PM
Rashkae
 
Default memory reported less than installed

Bill Walton wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> I just added an additional 8GB to the 2GB I previously had installed, but the System Monitor's only reporting 9.7GB. Is there something wrong or is this expected? The system's a Dell Precision 670 with dual 3.2 Xeons running 8.04 (hardy).
>
> TIA
> Bill
>

On board video? System monitor won't find the memory being dedicated to
video.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-10-2008, 05:27 PM
"Bill Walton"
 
Default memory reported less than installed

Hi Rashkae,

Rashkae wrote:

> On board video? System monitor won't find the memory
> being dedicated to video.

I don't think so. The system's got an NVIDIA card and I've got the driver
enabled. I'll try disabling the driver and see if that makes a difference.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Bill


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-10-2008, 05:39 PM
Smoot Carl-Mitchell
 
Default memory reported less than installed

On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 13:01 -0400, Rashkae wrote:
> Bill Walton wrote:
> > Greetings!
> >
> > I just added an additional 8GB to the 2GB I previously had installed, but the System Monitor's only reporting 9.7GB. Is there something wrong or is this expected? The system's a Dell Precision 670 with dual 3.2 Xeons running 8.04 (hardy).
> >
> > TIA
> > Bill
> >
>
> On board video? System monitor won't find the memory being dedicated to
> video.

The tools do not report memory used by the kernel image. The underlying
information is derived from /proc/meminfo. Here is a page I found which
explains meminfo:

http://www.redhat.com/advice/tips/meminfo.html

It is from Red hat, but since the kernels are the same as Ubuntu, it is
likely accurate.
--
Smoot Carl-Mitchell
System/Network Architect
smoot@tic.com
+1 480 922 7313
cell: +1 602 421 9005

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-10-2008, 05:41 PM
"David Fox"
 
Default memory reported less than installed

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Bill Walton <bill.walton@charter.net> wrote:

> I don't think so. The system's got an NVIDIA card and I've got the driver
> enabled. I'll try disabling the driver and see if that makes a difference.

Well I have 2 gig of ram, so scale as appropriate:

dfox@newbox:~/Desktop$ free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 1932840 1917000 15840 0 1128 1013876
-/+ buffers/cache: 901996 1030844
Swap: 1951888 1928 1949960

The Total Mem (1932840) should be accurate, minus some for the nvidia
driver as I have an onboard 6100 nvidia card on a motherboard chipset.

But I believe that some of the "missing' RAM is reserved by the
kernel, so it would be logical to assume what you see is 10 gigs of
ram +/-fudge factor for gigabits*1024 vs. gigabits*1000, minus
whatever ram is taken up by the kernel. System Monitor would simply
report the same total memory value as "free" does.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-11-2008, 12:43 AM
"Peter Goggin"
 
Default memory reported less than installed

Remember that the amount of memory shown depends on the definition of
Gbyte used.

Regards


Peter Goggin


-----Original Message-----
From: ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com
[mailto:ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com] On Behalf Of Bill Walton
Sent: Monday, 11 August 2008 3:27 AM
To: Ubuntu user technical support,not for general discussions
Subject: Re: memory reported less than installed

Hi Rashkae,

Rashkae wrote:

> On board video? System monitor won't find the memory
> being dedicated to video.

I don't think so. The system's got an NVIDIA card and I've got the
driver
enabled. I'll try disabling the driver and see if that makes a
difference.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Bill


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1603 - Release Date:
10/08/2008 6:13 PM



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-11-2008, 01:08 PM
"Bill Walton"
 
Default memory reported less than installed

Hi Mario,

Mario Xerxes Castelán Castro wrote:

> PD 2: Only for curiosity, why you install 10 GB of memory ?

I'm planning to try VMware Workstation. They've got the ability, they say,
to "create virtual network environments that include client, server and
database virtual machines." I'm hoping it'll let me do a couple of things
without spending the time / money to set up a real networked environment.
I'd like to experiment with deployment recipes for Rails apps. And I'd like
to experiment with and compare the performance/stability/ease of config/etc.
of mod_rails vs. mongrel clusters. Same with JRuby and MRI.

Best regards,
Bill


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-11-2008, 02:22 PM
Rashkae
 
Default memory reported less than installed

Bill Walton wrote:
> Hi Rashkae,
>
> Rashkae wrote:
>
>> On board video? System monitor won't find the memory
>> being dedicated to video.
>
> I don't think so. The system's got an NVIDIA card and I've got the driver
> enabled. I'll try disabling the driver and see if that makes a difference.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion.
>
> Bill
>
>

Hi bill

Since I sent that e-mail, I looked up the specs for your workstation,
and lo, it doesn't use on-board video, so there goes that idea (it was
rather convenient, the amount of memory you're missing is about right
for video)

The missing memory is a bit of a mystery to me. Just to rule out any
Large memory mapping nonsense type issues, can you confirm you are
indeed using 64-bit Ubuntu on this?

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-11-2008, 03:40 PM
"Bill Walton"
 
Default memory reported less than installed

Rashkae wrote:
> The missing memory is a bit of a mystery to me. Just to rule out any
> Large memory mapping nonsense type issues, can you confirm you are
> indeed using 64-bit Ubuntu on this?

I'm not sure how to do that.

System Monitor -> System shows:

ubuntu desktop
Ubuntu
Release 8.04 (hardy)
Kernel Linux 2.6.24-19-generic

Is there some place that tells specifically what version (32- vs 64-bit) is
installed?

Thanks,
Bill


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-11-2008, 03:47 PM
Rashkae
 
Default memory reported less than installed

Bill Walton wrote:

>
> Is there some place that tells specifically what version (32- vs 64-bit) is
> installed?
>

Try uname -a in a console. That should tell you what arch the kernel is
built for, at least.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-11-2008, 04:25 PM
Smoot Carl-Mitchell
 
Default memory reported less than installed

On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 08:08 -0500, Bill Walton wrote:
> Hi Mario,
>
> Mario Xerxes Castelán Castro wrote:
>
> > PD 2: Only for curiosity, why you install 10 GB of memory ?
>
> I'm planning to try VMware Workstation. They've got the ability, they say,
> to "create virtual network environments that include client, server and
> database virtual machines." I'm hoping it'll let me do a couple of things
> without spending the time / money to set up a real networked environment.
> I'd like to experiment with deployment recipes for Rails apps. And I'd like
> to experiment with and compare the performance/stability/ease of config/etc.
> of mod_rails vs. mongrel clusters. Same with JRuby and MRI.

Yep, VMware Workstation lets you set up virtual private networks. I
prototyped an LDAP deployment on my notebook with an LDAP client and an
LDAP server. Works well.
--
Smoot Carl-Mitchell
System/Network Architect
smoot@tic.com
+1 480 922 7313
cell: +1 602 421 9005

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:27 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org