Re: [Nautilus-list] RAM size formula ?

["Matthew J. Doller" <mdoller wpi edu>]

I have 320 megs (2 128s and a 64), so this wouldnt work for me.  nor
would it work for anyone with 96, 192, 48, or any other "strange" 
it may be an easier, if similarly lame, to just round to the nearest
multiple of 4, 8, or 16, whatever, since it seems most people are
experiencing differences of a meg or two.

note: nautilus (at least 1.0.6) does display my 320 megs correctly, but
only showed 191 megs before my upgrade.  go figure

On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 17:02, Alex Larsson wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2002, Glen Gray wrote:
> 
> > OK, currently using a KB reading from /proc/meminfo#MemTotal the code
> > does the following to work out your RAM
> > 
> > (size_kb + 500) / 1000
> > 
> > Whats the recommended way (if any) to work out total ram on a linux box
> 
> What value does not include the memory used by the kernel.
> 
> E.g. My machine says:
> Mar 18 12:31:24 mjc kernel: Memory: 251824k/261752k available (1970k kernel code, 7620k reserved, 109k data, 244k init, 0k highmem)
> 
> I think the easiest (if a bit lame) way is to round the size to the 
> nearest power of two megabytes.
> 
> -- 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>  Alexander Larsson                                            Red Hat, Inc 
>                    alexl redhat com    alla lysator liu se 
> He's a leather-clad Amish boxer on the edge. She's a foxy punk hooker with 
> only herself to blame. They fight crime! 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nautilus-list mailing list
> nautilus-list lists eazel com
> http://lists.eazel.com/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
> 
-- 
Matthew J. Doller 
mdoller wpi edu
http://www.wpi.edu/~mdoller