Jan Panteltje  writes:
> On a sunny day (Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:54:44 +0000) it happened Richard
> Kettlewell  wrote in
> :
>>Jan Panteltje  writes:
>>> Yes, cool,
>>> On my system it is set to 60, but WHY THEN is it filling almost the
>>> whole memory
>>> with cache?
>>
>>Because otherwise the memory would be wasted. You paid for the silicon,
>>you’re paying for the electricity that powers it, using it store idle
>>pages is not a good use of those resources. You are attacking a
>>non-problem.
>
> I disagree, I did see the swap space increasing day after day and that
> set of an alarm with me (normally I do a quick view on 'xosview').

It doesn’t matter.

What would matter is the system swqpping lots of things back in; that
would impact performance. But you’ve not measured that, as far as I can
tell. Nothing you’ve yet posted is inconsistent with the normal eviction
of idle pages from RAM.

> Also the same stuff running on a normal PC did not cause lots of
> unrelated things to get swapped.
> One of the links I gave shows there was a recent modification in the
> way the kernel
> handles caching.
> From:
> 
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/253816/restrict-size-of-buffer-cache-i
n-linux
> all the way at the bottom of the page:
> "Since Linux 2.6, [the bdflush] system call is deprecated and does
> nothing. It is likely to disappear altogether in a future kernel
> release. Nowadays, the task performed by bdflush() is handled by the
> kernel pdflush thread." man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/bdflush.2.html
> \u2013 sourcejedi Feb 22 '19 at 1:05

2.6 is not ‘recent’, it was released in 2003.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05