Mike McCarty wrote: > Isn't cached swap somewhat an oxymoron? Why cache virtual? > Am I misunderstanding this line from top? > > Swap: 524120k total, 80760k used, 443360k free, 73448k cached > > Mike its not cached swap, they just put the cached on the end of the swap line because it fits. I'll say this, its not often I see swap used > cached. that machine definately could use more memory.