Task Mngr, File Mngr, System Monitor - anomalies?
by DownSouth from LinuxQuestions.org on (#5CQ4D)
First of all, this isn't by any means a critical situation - but I'd still be grateful for some answers / advice.
Fresh install of Deb10.7 + XFCE on a 16GB USB - all going OK. Opening Task Manager just after booting, it tells me that approx 160MB of memory is being used. If I open System Monitor, I am informed that system is using 200MB memory.
I realise that the two progs add their own weight to the memory used but would there be that much diff?
Especially given that Task Mngr uses more than System Monitor, according to list of Processes.
Furthermore, File Resources in the System Monitor indicates that from the 14.7GB total, 11.5 GB is available. But when
I select Properties after right-clicking on the desktop, it informs me the total is only 13.7GB and 10.5GB is available.
Why the disparity?
Now, 1GB may not sound much but within the parameters of a 16GB drive, it is reasonably substantial. I presume the details in desktop Properties emanate from the File Manager, and it may be because of the way that prog has been designed, but why would it be felt necessary to considerably reduce the amount of available space? A 'safety' factor?
As I say, more curious that concerned at this stage - although the matter of 'available space' may be more serious,
On a 500GB drive this would equate to approx 30GB.
HNY, BTW.
Fresh install of Deb10.7 + XFCE on a 16GB USB - all going OK. Opening Task Manager just after booting, it tells me that approx 160MB of memory is being used. If I open System Monitor, I am informed that system is using 200MB memory.
I realise that the two progs add their own weight to the memory used but would there be that much diff?
Especially given that Task Mngr uses more than System Monitor, according to list of Processes.
Furthermore, File Resources in the System Monitor indicates that from the 14.7GB total, 11.5 GB is available. But when
I select Properties after right-clicking on the desktop, it informs me the total is only 13.7GB and 10.5GB is available.
Why the disparity?
Now, 1GB may not sound much but within the parameters of a 16GB drive, it is reasonably substantial. I presume the details in desktop Properties emanate from the File Manager, and it may be because of the way that prog has been designed, but why would it be felt necessary to considerably reduce the amount of available space? A 'safety' factor?
As I say, more curious that concerned at this stage - although the matter of 'available space' may be more serious,
On a 500GB drive this would equate to approx 30GB.
HNY, BTW.