PDA

View Full Version : lucid takes a lot of ram !?



lucasart
April 23rd, 2010, 10:16 PM
hello everyone

on a freshly installed lucid x64, i have 587 MB used after starting the computer. didn't add any startup application or anything. it seems a lot: it's getting comparable to windows 7, which is really not a compliment...

is it normal / intended by the developers /

Longinus00
April 23rd, 2010, 10:25 PM
See if a reboot fixes it. If the reboot does then it's because of a bug in ureadahead.

BwackNinja
April 23rd, 2010, 10:30 PM
There is a bug in Xorg that is a kinda bad memory leak and it needs testing. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Testing/GEMLeak

cariboo907
April 23rd, 2010, 10:33 PM
Windows 7 & Vista attempt to use ram the same way Linux does, all three cache programs in ram until they are needed, as is often said when this question comes up, "empty ram is wasted ram"

Currenty the output of free -m on this system looks like this:


free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 2009 1993 15 0 950 206
-/+ buffers/cache: 837 1172
Swap: 2000 24 1976

As you can see from the above, used memory including cached is 1993Mb, actual usage is 837Mb. Higher ram usage is more than likely because I am running gnome-shell, nautilus, chrome and have a terminal open, plus I'm transcoding a dvd at the moment.

Sylslay
April 23rd, 2010, 10:35 PM
In windows like usualy when You see the proces manager , it dysplay PAGE FILE OF RAM.
I have uesed from 175-300+ MB (with firefox nad 4 tabs open), whan I change hdd for faster , system 9.10 x32bit use less memory than before on old hdd (twice slower than now)/

jeffreyvergara.NET
April 25th, 2010, 04:19 AM
yes, same here... normally I only use 200-300mb RAM in ubuntu 9.10 but in ubuntu 10.4 RC normally it spike to 400-600mb RAM even if i close applications such as firefox and evolution RAM does not decrease.

I also tried xubuntu 10.4 RC but got the same result

mmalone21
April 25th, 2010, 04:32 AM
Mine is 419mb with 7 Firefox Windows open (call me old-fashioned but I don't use tabs). I just opened the same amount of window on anther machine with windows 7 (all of the eye candy turned of and multiple registry tweaks so it looks like Windows 98, again I am old-fashioned) and it is using 972mb of ram. I will stick will Ubuntu for web browsing.

tokyobadger
April 25th, 2010, 04:56 AM
free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 5974 2824 3149 0 183 968
-/+ buffers/cache: 1672 4301
Swap: 972 0 972

Currently open on the standard Gnome DE are:
Chromium 12 tabs open
2 Terminals
Update Manager
1 IM Conversation Window
Gwibber
Evolution
Rhythmbox (paused)
System Monitor
The load is heavier than my Arch install (same box) which is also amd64, also Gnome, also using compiz. Gwibber I know is 'heavy'.

But as cariboo907 states it's not a problem. On another box I have 4G of DDR2, no swap partition, running Gentoo-amd64 (Funtoo repos) and also Gnome, Chromium etc - yesterday's updates included GCC and Glibc, 2 pretty beefy packages when you compile from source. Memory usage peaked at about 2.6G.

Memory leaks are a valid concern - one app server at work went down last week due to a memory leak - when you're a global organization with 50K; employees, that's a problem.

mrgs
April 25th, 2010, 11:55 PM
On a freshly booted machine, free -m gives a pleasant surprise:


total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 2011 306 1705 0 60 116
-/+ buffers/cache: 130 1881
Swap: 6675 0 6675
Only 130 MB used, and this is a standard 10.04 installation where I have not done anything special in order to speed up the system.

On two other machines, a full 8.10 installation takes 235 MB, and a minimal 9.04 takes 82.

In a world of bloated operative systems, I think we can be proud of this.

EDIT: The 8.10 runs Apache and PHP.

xir_
April 26th, 2010, 10:21 AM
try "df -h" and see if ureadahead is there. If it is then you've likely been hit buy a bug where it doesn't unload from ram once its finished.

Kenda
April 26th, 2010, 10:49 AM
@desktop:~$ free -m
used cache
-/+ buffers/cache: 1004 4971
Swap: 627 0 627



The above is on a fresh install with just Google chrome open. Uptime is about 12 hours. One other user open. FGLRX on ATI 4850. Basically Cache is using nearly 5 Gib of Ram.

This doesn't look or feel right to me? does it look problematic?

lean
April 26th, 2010, 11:02 AM
@desktop:~$ free -m
used cache
-/+ buffers/cache: 1004 4971
Swap: 627 0 627



The above is on a fresh install with just Google chrome open. Uptime is about 12 hours. One other user open. FGLRX on ATI 4850. Basically Cache is using nearly 5 Gib of Ram.

This doesn't look or feel right to me? does it look problematic?

That looks very fine. The only ram usage is 1004MB. buffers/cache just means that some files are loaded into ram, but they are discarded if a program needs the memory. You are not using any swap, which is also as it should be.

mrgs
April 26th, 2010, 12:01 PM
http://www.linuxatemyram.com/

frncz
April 26th, 2010, 12:07 PM
Im using lucid 10.04 on an old laptop with only 384Mb RAM, with no problem. Do Lucid obviously does not need more RAM. However it would be faster with more.

Kenda
April 26th, 2010, 12:27 PM
That looks very fine. The only ram usage is 1004MB. buffers/cache just means that some files are loaded into ram, but they are discarded if a program needs the memory. You are not using any swap, which is also as it should be.

Many thanks for that reply, Lean.