> Thanks Matthew, but it wasn't *really* a problem: what I was trying to
> do was to replicate a rather simple minded RAM/cache/swap model given in
> a textbook (saying, more or less, that once all the RAM is used up the
> 'puter will use swap). Without really cheating (apportioning a vast
> quantity of memory to Squeak, say) I couldn't get less than 2064Kb of
> free RAM, and less than 60,000Kb of swap. And swap was being used very
> early on, while there was plenty of RAM left. I even had 4 Squeaks
> running Jochen's slideshow simultaneously along with Netscape, Gimp and
> Star Office at one point, all on top of KDE. Strangely (or maybe not)
> Squeak seemed by far the least affected: Gimp and KDE were very
> obviously making big cache hits.
> 
> Looks like I need a better RAM/cache/swap model!
> 

Hmm, I bet you'll notice if one of those Squeak's tries to do a full
garbage collect, or any other full scan of memory.  :)  e.g., redefine a
class and watch it wait....  Although, at least in the scanning case,
the memory is used in sequence from beginning to end.

Anyway, that's certainly interesting that the amount of memory Squeak
actively uses, is much less than the size of the image!


-Lex