PDA

View Full Version : why bother with large ram



m4tic
January 12th, 2010, 03:50 PM
i have two 512mb memory, i lend one to a friend sometimes. i can survive with 512mb all year round on ubuntu if i wanted. so seeing other users here with 4gig, 8gig makes me wonder. so please fill me in on why you need that much memory(ubuntuwise that is) and why others should consider upgrading their ram

NoaHall
January 12th, 2010, 03:52 PM
Because some of us use other operating systems, and do work on our computers. And those who don't work, they play games.

/thread

Johnsie
January 12th, 2010, 03:52 PM
So you can have lots of applications open at the same time. I'm the only programmer where I work so I constantly have a bunch of programs open. If someone calls me I can immediately go into the program I want, look for what I need and then talk about it.

Outlook, PDF files and web browsers can use quite alot of RAM and so do most professional IDE's. Yes, there are a few programs on Ubuntu that use less RAM but more often than not those programs are of a lower quality than the mainstream programs used by most businesses.

Right now I have 12 Outlook Windows open, 2 Putty, 1 WinSCP, MSN Messenger, 2 Excel Spreadsheelts, A text editor with multiple tabs open, Firefox, IE8, 2 PFD docs and some explorer windows and everything is working fine.

Before I put an extra 1GB in it was incredibly slow, but now it's damn fast.

xuCGC002
January 12th, 2010, 03:55 PM
i have two 512mb memory, i lend one to a friend sometimes. i can survive with 512mb all year round on ubuntu if i wanted. so seeing other users here with 4gig, 8gig makes me wonder. so please fill me in on why you need that much memory(ubuntuwise that is) and why others should consider upgrading their ram

1. I don't like wasting my time on making memory usage as low as possible
2. It's a much faster experience
3. There is no step 3
4. I use VirtualBox a lot, I can allocate 2GB of RAM to it and still be fine
5. Multitasking

jjjc_93
January 12th, 2010, 03:55 PM
I have 4GB of RAM and I constantly find myself needing more. Mainly because of running windows in a VM and sone fairly intensive apps all at once.

Mighty_Joe
January 12th, 2010, 03:56 PM
If you don't have many, many gigs of ram, elite users will point at you and laugh.
Seriously, tho. It depends on what you are doing. If you're just browsing the web, you should be fine with 512Mb. There are many applications, like editing video for example, that will take many gigs and then some. I have an old Athlon XP 2k system with 768Mb of RAM and Ubuntu runs sufficiently fast for web browsing, but it bogs down quick if I'm doing more than one or two tasks at the same time. My laptop with 2Gb RAM flies pretty much all the time even though I'm running it off a bootable USB drive.

Joeb454
January 12th, 2010, 03:59 PM
I have 4GB, but I run virtual machines, from time to time I'll be running more than 1 at the same time.

I should also point out that I give VM's 1GB of RAM, which is always plenty, and leaves me with plenty to play with as well :)

Techsnap
January 12th, 2010, 04:05 PM
I have 4GB RAM which has many uses, I definitely wouldn't be able to use my computer like I do with 512MB RAM for the following reasons:

Gaming Video Editing Virtual Machines (Sometimes I Run 3, Maybe 4 VMS at Once) Video Encoding Video Capture [Converting to DVDs, CPU Usage Too]

Groucho Marxist
January 12th, 2010, 04:06 PM
i have two 512mb memory, i lend one to a friend sometimes. i can survive with 512mb all year round on ubuntu if i wanted. so seeing other users here with 4gig, 8gig makes me wonder. so please fill me in on why you need that much memory(ubuntuwise that is) and why others should consider upgrading their ram

I run a virtualized legal copy of Windows XP Pro x64 for gaming and work related programs; 8 GB of RAM greatly helps in running both Ubuntu and Windows simultaneously.

Grenage
January 12th, 2010, 04:08 PM
I'd wince at less than 4, my current machine has 8. I play games, and a decent amount of RAM makes for a nice experience - plus it's cheap.

512MB is fine if you're just browsing the web.

unknownPoster
January 12th, 2010, 04:11 PM
From a computer science perspective, more RAM is good for the occasional raytracer renderings we have to do.

forrestcupp
January 12th, 2010, 04:14 PM
It's popular in the Linux world to try to run minimalistic systems with very small footprints.

Some people, however, would rather run a souped up system with lots of bling and features. What some people call "bloat" are "features" to others, and we like it. For those of us with those tastes, we need lots of RAM and processor speed.

The good thing about Linux is that there are plenty of choices out there for people of all tastes.

Psumi
January 12th, 2010, 04:17 PM
To be honest, I have a 512 MB RAM Stick, but it's dying, so I only have 496 MB of RAM. Right now, GNOME, Totem, Firefox, Pidgin, python, and some other processes are taking up... 203 MB of RAM. Firefox itself is taking up about 40 to 60 MB of RAM alone. (Midori would take up about 30 to 40 MB alone) Pidgin takes up about 17 to 20 MB of RAM, python about 6 MB, gnome system monitor about 5 MB, gnome panel about 4-5 MB (lxpanel takes up 3-5 MB, tint2 takes up about 2 to 4 MB, xfce4-panel takes up the same amount as gnome panel.) Wicd would take up about 17 MB of RAM if I had its notification icon running. nm-applet takes up about 5-10 MB of RAM.

I also have a single-core 1.6 GHz processor, and it's all taking up 25% of the CPU (mainly due to totem running music). Add compiz, and you got a system that can't even function, though compiz is on by default in a default ubuntu install on my machine.... Damn 32MB ATI Mobility RADEON 9000 Graphics card.

mamamia88
January 12th, 2010, 04:20 PM
some people like to have a bunch of stuff open at once

whiskeylover
January 12th, 2010, 04:25 PM
some people like to have a bunch of stuff open at once

Sometimes its a necessity. For us, who're developers and programmers, it is necessary to have many programs running at the same time.

Right now I'm running windows, as work requires it. I have firefox, Windows remote desktop client, Oracle's warehouse builder windows, Outlook client, IE, Windows explorer and SQL developer open at the same time. Try running all that on 512 megs. : )

anaconda
January 12th, 2010, 04:38 PM
Untill recently I had only 512MB of RAM, and then I got another 512MB RAM for free. Cant really notice any difference

(OK. with only 512MB the swap was used sometimes. (rarely) And when swap was in use the machine slowed down to crawling..)

insane_alien
January 12th, 2010, 04:46 PM
if you don't need lots of RAM, then no. you shouldn't really bother about it.

if, on the otherhand, you do need it, and there are THOUSANDS of applications that do benefit from a generous helping of RAM , then you shouldn definitely be looking for more.

there are certain applications in the world of computing that have a time-memory trade off. you can get it done faster simply by putting in a few extra sticks of RAM.

pwnst*r
January 12th, 2010, 04:49 PM
Because some of us use other operating systems, and do work on our computers. And those who don't work, they play games.

/thread

^this.

fromthehill
January 12th, 2010, 04:50 PM
running virtual machines is a pain if you don't have much ram
virusscanners can take up a lot of ram. XP runs fine on a 512MB machine. if you install symantec enterprise suite(ok that is as horrible as it can get) on it's impossible to use

whiskeylover
January 12th, 2010, 04:53 PM
^this.

^this.

Perfect Storm
January 12th, 2010, 04:54 PM
I have 4GB RAM which has many uses, I definitely wouldn't be able to use my computer like I do with 512MB RAM for the following reasons:

Gaming Video Editing Virtual Machines (Sometimes I Run 3, Maybe 4 VMS at Once) Video Encoding Video Capture [Converting to DVDs, CPU Usage Too]

+1

...and I'm also do Image editing and Video/sound editing. 512 MB isn't enough for those tasks. I'm seriously thinking upgrading from 4GB to 8GB.

cascade9
January 12th, 2010, 05:03 PM
+1 to pretty much everything said before (not often I agree with a whole thread LOL)

Here is a different point of view though-

As RAM moves on, getting small sticks gets harder.

1GB is about the smallest you can get easily in DDR3. Considering that virtually everything is dual channel these days, 2GB is a minimum for new systems. That is one reason why RAM size is increasing.

Also, its going to cost (aprox) $60 for 2x1GB sticks of DDR3. 2x2GB is only $80 or so. Its worth the few extra dollars to get 2x2GB for 4GB.

shuttleworthwannabe
January 12th, 2010, 05:06 PM
I guess only way for the OP to know is to try working with at least 2GB of RAm and notice the difference even if just web surfing. Application launch and multi-tasking is a pleasure with more than 1GB of RAM.

Psumi
January 12th, 2010, 05:06 PM
+1 to pretty much everything said before (not often I agree with a whole thread LOL)

Here is a different point of view though-

As RAM moves on, getting small sticks gets harder.

1GB is about the smallest you can get easily in DDR3. Considering that virtually everything is dual channel these days, 2GB is a minimum for new systems. That is one reason why RAM size is increasing.

Also, its going to cost (aprox) $60 for 2x1GB sticks of DDR3. 2x2GB is only $80 or so. Its worth the few extra dollars to get 2x2GB for 4GB.

To upgrade my RAM, it will cost me 70 USD for just one 1GB PC-2700 SoDIMM.

Dragonbite
January 12th, 2010, 05:10 PM
i have two 512mb memory, i lend one to a friend sometimes. i can survive with 512mb all year round on ubuntu if i wanted. so seeing other users here with 4gig, 8gig makes me wonder. so please fill me in on why you need that much memory(ubuntuwise that is) and why others should consider upgrading their ram

Depending on what you are doing, you can notice the difference between 512MB and 1 GB+. I'm not sure how big of a difference is seen over that as I haven't finished setting up my 2.5 GB system yet.

NoaHall
January 12th, 2010, 05:12 PM
+1

...and I'm also do Image editing and Video/sound editing. 512 MB isn't enough for those tasks. I'm seriously thinking upgrading from 4GB to 8GB.

Why not jump up to 16GB(like me)? There are some nice 16GB(usually 4 4GB's) ram stick deals out there.

venator260
January 12th, 2010, 05:24 PM
Ill add to the chorus of answers.

I feel pinched with 512Mb even as what I would consider a casual computer user.

When I'm either applying for jobs or otherwise editing documents, I find myself needing a couple of Open Office documents open, several tabs in Firefox, as well as a music player and Pidgin. There are times when my RAM + Swap usage gets up to about 768M - 1 Gig. And with only 512M of RAM it starts to crawl rather slowly. Right now, with only Firefox and Banshee open, free -m shows only 158M free. An Open Office window or two would chew right through that.

The Real Dave
January 12th, 2010, 05:25 PM
I have about 1.4Gb of useable RAM. I'm currently using 600MB of it, mostly firefox, rythmbox and pidgin. This is on a fresh install of 9.10 x86_64. Jaunty x86 was a lot lighter on RAM, doing the same used only 450-500Mb.

I'm starting to think now about upgrading to 2Gb, which would only cost ~20€. The only trouble then is, what do I do with the spare 512Mb stick of DDR2? Keep it with the 15 spare sticks of PC-100 I have I guess ;)

Xbehave
January 12th, 2010, 05:48 PM
disk cache
This is probably where most unused ram goes (anything over 2Gb for a normal desktop will likely go here). Instead of keeping files on disc (slow), linux can keep a copy of the file in ram only write to the disc when it wants/needs to. (currently it's cheaper to get more ram than it is to get faster discs)

Allowing programs to use more memory for their own caches.
Basically there is often a time/space trade off in computing, many programs cache data (such as the examples below) so when you try and access the data you can get it quickly, if the operating system doesn't have enough free memory to keep much in the cache then it will still run fine but it will be slower. (currently it's cheaper to get more ram than it is to get a better cpu)
Say your running compiz, instead of geting window previews on the fly more ram allows compiz to just store the images ahead of time and run faster. The same applies for firefox and caching background tabs. Desktop indexers can run with less ram, the more ram they have the more direct comparisons they can do without touching your disk and as a result they.
[the examples are made up, but i'm fairly sure that's how it works]


4gb is probably excessive unless your doing something that needs it (unless your running VMs or video editing, 8gb is almost definitely over compensating) but I've run machines with 256,1gb and now 1.3gb and there is an improvement.

jwbrase
January 12th, 2010, 06:13 PM
Well, I use Opera as my web browser, and it does get a bit memory hungry on Linux (I can't tell if it's a memory leak or aggressive caching). So 512 is a bit tight for me, but I could probably live within a GB.

As to why I have 3 gigs on here:

1. Better to have too much than too little. I like to have lots of breathing room.
2. Planning for the future: This being the first machine that I myself have owned, I want it to be worth my money and last me a while. While I probably could do alot of the stuff I do on a system with 1 gig, it wouldn't last as long before I'd have to upgrade the memory or throw the machine out as future OS's and programs started to consume more memory to give more features.

markp1989
January 12th, 2010, 06:24 PM
i have 4gb so i can have no swap partition on my ssd to minimize writes

and i have 4gb on my media pc, so i can have no swap partition, and cache files media to ram so the hard drive can spend most time span down.

really 4gb of ram costs like £50 , so its a cheap upgrade :)

CharlesA
January 12th, 2010, 06:37 PM
To upgrade my RAM, it will cost me 70 USD for just one 1GB PC-2700 SoDIMM.

Plain DDR ram? That's going to be expensive, since it's old technology and hard(er) to find. I'm pretty sure cascade9 was talking about newer desktop memory.

DDR2 prices are going up, DDR3 is stable atm. I don't even want to think about how much it would cost to get a regular stick of plain DDR ram.

My reason is this: RAM is cheap. All my machines (minus one, an old DELL which is using 1GB DDR 266.) run 4GB of RAM. Better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it.

samh785
January 12th, 2010, 06:41 PM
1. I don't like wasting my time on making memory usage as low as possible
2. It's a much faster experience
3. There is no step 3
4. I use VirtualBox a lot, I can allocate 2GB of RAM to it and still be fine
5. Multitasking
6. ???
7. Profit!

RabbitWho
January 12th, 2010, 07:13 PM
I have 4GB of ram, and only a "dual core" processor. That's ridiculous. I don't have a fast enough processor for things that require 4GB of ram. Why would they make a computer with such a ridiculous set up. Because they knew I would think that Dual core and core2 were the same thing. Diabolical...

Just look!

rabbit@penguincounter:~$ free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 3493 1288 2204 0 103 622
-/+ buffers/cache: 562 2931
Swap: 7655 0 7655

(waiting till lynx for 64-bit, so of course 500MB can't be read yet)

I have Gimp, Firefox, Skype and open office all running at the same time and I'm only using 1.2GB. How the hell am I ever going to use 4?

I opened up every single program I have at the one time without managing to max out the ram. And even then I have Eight GB of swap. (I won't let it do that next time)

I suppose as they said too much is better than not enough

I had a conversation with my boss about his new computer and he said he didn't care about processor or ram as long as it had a big cache.. he wanted a 4GB cache.. I told him I didn't think the computers in Nasa had that much of a cache and he was probably thinking of RAM and he said "I'll have to ask someone who knows a little bit more about it to be honest." .... burn
When he finally bought it man did I have fun asking him about the size of the cache and sympathetically enquiring if the people in the shop laughed at him.

lisati
January 12th, 2010, 07:26 PM
I concur that having extra RAM can make a difference.

I notice a couple of people have 512Mb RAM: my previous laptop had 222Mb available RAM. Although it could run Ubuntu, it got a bit sluggish trying to do more than run more than one thing at once.

I'm also into video editing: my main desktop (currently set up to host the web page mentioned in my sig) came with 512Mb RAM. When I used it for video editing, I noticed a performance improvement when I put in another 512Mb RAM.

Speaking of minimal systems: my backup machine, which is getting old and tired, has only 64Mb RAM. So far the only version of Ubuntu I've successfully managed to get running on it is a command-line version of 6.06. Trying to put a GUI on it with Ubuntu results in "out of memory" errors (eventually). (I did manage to install Puppy on it once, but found it a bit slow on this machine. And I can't be bothered figuring out setting up something like Apache on another OS at the moment.)

My next machine will probably have more RAM.

oldos2er
January 12th, 2010, 07:31 PM
i have two 512mb memory, i lend one to a friend sometimes. i can survive with 512mb all year round on ubuntu if i wanted. so seeing other users here with 4gig, 8gig makes me wonder. so please fill me in on why you need that much memory(ubuntuwise that is) and why others should consider upgrading their ram

Because it's there.

lisati
January 12th, 2010, 07:37 PM
Because it's there.

+1 :)

If I were to buy a new car, I might not need the airbags in the day-to-day running of the car, but they'd be there......

Dragonbite
January 12th, 2010, 08:01 PM
i have 4gb so i can have no swap partition on my ssd to minimize writes

and i have 4gb on my media pc, so i can have no swap partition, and cache files media to ram so the hard drive can spend most time span down.

really 4gb of ram costs like £50 , so its a cheap upgrade :)

Is there a wiki link or documentation on doing this (reducing hdd read/write with larger RAM)?

Zoot7
January 12th, 2010, 08:05 PM
I've 4GB, mainly for:


Virtual Machines (1-3 at once)
Gaming
Home Recording (Can be Very RAM heavy at times)

m4tic
January 12th, 2010, 08:05 PM
i use my machine for school work, music and browsing. the heaviest application im always using is a 3d CAD design software, on my uni's lab computers it takes about 1.2gig but i can run it also on my pc with only 512 dual boot xp and it wil use about 350mb (virtual memory proves effecient), its only slow at startup but it runs smooth once open. on ubuntu my swap space also works well but my anthlon 11 hits around 90% most of the time, i don't know why but ubuntu can't manage it well like xp does

CharlesA
January 12th, 2010, 08:18 PM
You are using 90% of your swap space?

cascade9
January 12th, 2010, 08:34 PM
To upgrade my RAM, it will cost me 70 USD for just one 1GB PC-2700 SoDIMM.

Laptop RAM is always more expensive. Upgrading once things have moved past that technology (DDR1 is pretty old now) costs more as well.


Plain DDR ram? That's going to be expensive, since it's old technology and hard(er) to find. I'm pretty sure cascade9 was talking about newer desktop memory.

Yes. People are far more likely to upgrade, or specify RAM amounts in desktops. People tend to run whatever they got from the manufacturer with laptops.


I have 4GB of ram, and only a "dual core" processor. That's ridiculous. I don't have a fast enough processor for things that require 4GB of ram. Why would they make a computer with such a ridiculous set up. Because they knew I would think that Dual core and core2 were the same thing. Diabolical...

Just look!

rabbit@penguincounter:~$ free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 3493 1288 2204 0 103 622
-/+ buffers/cache: 562 2931
Swap: 7655 0 7655

(waiting till lynx for 64-bit, so of course 500MB can't be read yet)

I have Gimp, Firefox, Skype and open office all running at the same time and I'm only using 1.2GB. How the hell am I ever going to use 4?

I opened up every single program I have at the one time without managing to max out the ram. And even then I have Eight GB of swap. (I won't let it do that next time)

I suppose as they said too much is better than not enough

I had a conversation with my boss about his new computer and he said he didn't care about processor or ram as long as it had a big cache.. he wanted a 4GB cache.. I told him I didn't think the computers in Nasa had that much of a cache and he was probably thinking of RAM and he said "I'll have to ask someone who knows a little bit more about it to be honest." .... burn
When he finally bought it man did I have fun asking him about the size of the cache and sympathetically enquiring if the people in the shop laughed at him.

Try loading up DVD:rip, k9 copy, or any video ripping/encoding program and watch that 4GB get eaten. It all depends on what you do.

BTW, in common use, 'cache' isn't used to mean 'main system RAM'. Its more used to describe the actual cache RAM on the CPU. Laugh at your boss even more :D

standingwave
January 12th, 2010, 08:56 PM
than need it and not have it. I tend to keep my systems (especially the desktops) longer than most so I have anticipate my needs a few years in advance. My previous desktop had USB 1.0 and PATA for pete's sake.

SuperSonic4
January 12th, 2010, 09:03 PM
For multi-tasking. I've ripped 4 CDs at once while browsing in firefox, being in kmess, amarok on, mplayer+vlc compiling and devede going on

pwnst*r
January 12th, 2010, 09:15 PM
Who in their right mind has four cd/dvd burners connected? Hopefully you're doing that temporarily to ease the pain of archiving a large cd collection.

NoaHall
January 12th, 2010, 09:16 PM
Who in their right mind has four cd/dvd burners connected? Hopefully you're doing that temporarily to ease the pain of archiving a large cd collection.

I have 3 DVD drives connected, right now. Cause I'm cool like that. Also because I tend to run several games at the same time while watching something.

cascade9
January 12th, 2010, 09:18 PM
Who in their right mind has four cd/dvd burners connected? Hopefully you're doing that temporarily to ease the pain of archiving a large cd collection.

All I can say is.....'avast ye scury dogs, man-o-war bearing down on the port side' :twisted:

Tristam Green
January 12th, 2010, 09:21 PM
@OP: because a Dakota simply will not do.

SuperSonic4
January 12th, 2010, 09:22 PM
Who in their right mind has four cd/dvd burners connected? Hopefully you're doing that temporarily to ease the pain of archiving a large cd collection.

I'm reimporting all my physical disks as flac. Also, why the heck not :p

inobe
January 12th, 2010, 09:28 PM
some like running live environments where everything is written to memory !


4 gigs of ram is nothing in a live environment.

Zoot7
January 12th, 2010, 09:34 PM
I'm reimporting all my physical disks as flac. Also, why the heck not :p
LMAO! What a waste of SATA ports. :p

All my SATA ports bar the one I've used for a single CD drive are occupied by 1TB Hard drives.

RabbitWho
January 12th, 2010, 09:57 PM
Laptop RAM is always more expensive. Upgrading once things have moved past that technology (DDR1 is pretty old now) costs more as well.



Yes. People are far more likely to upgrade, or specify RAM amounts in desktops. People tend to run whatever they got from the manufacturer with laptops.



Try loading up DVD:rip, k9 copy, or any video ripping/encoding program and watch that 4GB get eaten. It all depends on what you do.


True, but! the processor also makes a funny noise and the monitor shows both cores at 100% when I do things like that.

I guess I'll be happy I have the extra RAM eventually what i should really be complaining about is the processor heh. Still, it more than suits my needs. It's just that modern choice disease where you always wonder what might have been.

juancarlospaco
January 12th, 2010, 10:36 PM
Because if its more large than the slot, it won't fit...
:)

m4tic
January 12th, 2010, 10:51 PM
how big of a part does just simply ''showing off'' play in your RAM choice

aaaantoine
January 12th, 2010, 11:00 PM
@OP: because a Dakota simply will not do.

Well done.

whiskeylover
January 12th, 2010, 11:24 PM
Is this thread still alive?

Dear OP,

If all the programs you run can fit in 512K of memory, then it doesn't matter if you have 512K or 100G of RAM. The problems starts when the amount of required memory exceeds the physical amount of memory. Then the OS starts using the swap area. Thats when you see your HDD indicator always flickering (its called trashing.) Basically, the OS swaps some inactive programs out of the RAM onto the swap area and makes room for currently active programs (remember, programs can ONLY run in RAM.)

So, say, all you do is use firefox to access gmail.com, ubuntuforums.org and play solitaire, you probably do not need more than 512K of RAM. But there are others who use their computers for much more. And in most cases, 512K is NOT enough.

HTH.
-whiskey


/thread

Xbehave
January 12th, 2010, 11:32 PM
If all the programs you run can fit in 512K of memory, then it doesn't matter if you have 512K or 100G of RAM.
Actually read my earlier post, basically caching of various things (including your files) means more ram makes most things run faster.

hessiess
January 12th, 2010, 11:38 PM
I have 2 gigs in this comp, and my memory usage rarely ever goes much above 30%.

whiskeylover
January 12th, 2010, 11:40 PM
Please.... /thread

Marvin666
January 12th, 2010, 11:57 PM
The laptop I had before my current one shipped with 1gb (and vista). Needless to say, that combination was painfully slow, part of the reason I actually installed linux. I later upgraded to 2.5gb and it was a whole lot faster. The laptop suffered a motherboard failure before I got around to upgrading it further to 4gb. This laptop shipped with 4gb, and I'm gonna upgrade it as soon as it's out of warranty. Unfortunate warranty sticker placement prevents me from opening the door covering the ram. Anybody know of a better deal for ddr2 laptop memory, then $115 for 1, and $230 for 2?

CharlesA
January 13th, 2010, 12:22 AM
Anybody know of a better deal for ddr2 laptop memory, then $115 for 1, and $230 for 2?

What speed?

Newegg.com Search. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010170381+1052910525&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&Subcategory=381&description=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=)

Looks like 230 is the cheapest for an 8GB kit. =/

Xbehave
January 13th, 2010, 12:35 AM
Please.... /thread
Just repeating that doesn't stop you being wrong.


I have 2 gigs in this comp, and my memory usage rarely ever goes much above 30%.
What about real usage (including fs caches), i have less (1377mb) ram but i only have 7.4% free but that may be because i deliberately put my /tmp in ram. If your real ram usage (got from free -m or htop) really is that low, consider settings up preload to get programs to boot faster (yet another good use of ram)

whiskeylover
January 13th, 2010, 12:45 AM
Just repeating that doesn't stop you being wrong.



Please enlighten me on how what I said was wrong? Agreed, it was a very simplistic explanation, but its not wrong.

As for your running filesystems in RAM, try to understand that whatever program you're running (RAMDISK in this case) is also a freaking running program. Hence, it occupies memory.

Xbehave
January 13th, 2010, 01:01 AM
Please enlighten me on how what I said was wrong? Agreed, it was a very simplistic explanation, but its not wrong.
More ram, means your OS and software can do more caching so stuff runs faster.


As for your running filesystems in RAM, try to understand that whatever program you're running (RAMDISK in this case) is also a freaking running program. Hence, it occupies memory.
erm linux supports ramdisks as filesystems so there is no "program" running other than the kernel itself, it takes no more ram than usual because linux always has various ramdisks (for ipc, /dev, etc) so the code is loaded anyway.

whiskeylover
January 13th, 2010, 01:10 AM
More ram, means your OS and software can do more caching so stuff runs faster.


erm linux supports ramdisks as filesystems so there is no "program" running other than the kernel itself, it takes no more ram than usual because linux always has various ramdisks (for ipc, /dev, etc) so the code is loaded anyway.


OMG! What do they call it? A facepalm?
As I said, my explanation was very simplistic for the OP. I know the kernal runs in RAM too. By "running programs", I obviously meant the kernal and the user processes. Hence, if you're making use of the Ramdisk, you're obviously using up more RAM. The RAMDISK is a "part of the kernal" that reserves a block of RAM to simulate a filesystem on it.

I don't know how else to explain it, I'm sorry.

Dayofswords
January 13th, 2010, 01:15 AM
before we recently(dec '09) upgraded one of our main computers, it had winxp 128mb, now its win xp 600~mb

kids these days!!!

note: this poster isnt even old enough to drink in the united states, but acts old due to the fact he has old equipment that have genuine win 2000 and win98 stickers, and is on a $10 yearly pc budget.
but he loves every moment of those computers. one is even his first pc from 1998

Marvin666
January 13th, 2010, 01:44 AM
Never mind the ram upgrade, I was on the manufacturer's website, and it said 4gb was the max this model supported.

Xbehave
January 13th, 2010, 01:47 AM
OMG! What do they call it? A facepalm?
As I said, my explanation was very simplistic for the OP.
If you actually read the thread, somewhere early i gave a more detailed explanation of how more ram speeds up everyday stuff (firefox, file indexing, compiz, etc), but by far the biggest benefit of extra ram is larger fs caches, they reduce iowaits, save energy (lets laptops run longer, desktops run cooler) and allow smoother multitasking (by holding writes in ram until the write can be done for real without affecting other processes). Basically

If all the programs you run can fit in 512K of memory, then it doesn't matter if you have 512K or 100G of RAM.
isn't even remotely true, so closing the thread after such tripe would be a bad idea.

chriswyatt
January 13th, 2010, 02:15 AM
I had to do video / audio / photo editing at university and some of the applications and documents would consume vast amounts of memory. Also it's good practice to use high pixel/color resolution and that can really eat memory.

I've got 2 gigs of RAM which sounds like a lot but when I'm tying to run a virtualised XP and a few memory hogging applications I could probably actually do with a bit more .

Genius314
January 13th, 2010, 02:25 AM
I got 4 gigs of RAM (2 sticks of 2gb) for only $20. How could I possibly pass that up?! :D
Especially since, at the time, I could probably only get about 1 gig for that price.

It's nice to have this much ram, though. If I'm running Blender, or opening a large file in GIMP, I don't have to worry about using up too much memory.

kk0sse54
January 13th, 2010, 02:27 AM
i have two 512mb memory, i lend one to a friend sometimes. i can survive with 512mb all year round on ubuntu if i wanted. so seeing other users here with 4gig, 8gig makes me wonder. so please fill me in on why you need that much memory(ubuntuwise that is) and why others should consider upgrading their ram

To run ZFS of course ;)

spupy
January 13th, 2010, 02:30 AM
Small rams can't hit that hard. And their horns are not so big and twisty. Large rams are majestic and keep intruders away, but they make dirty in the house and like to climb on the roof and on the trees in the backyard.

Anyway, I have 2G of RAM, but the second one is catching spider webs from not being used. I don't think I ever saw my laptop using more than 1G. I keep repeating myself that I can keep documents and programs open with no problems, but I don't do it. I have one folder mounted in the ram (though I do have a saddle with which to mount the ram, the big one), I sometimes use it to watch video from ram when the disk is busy with intensive stuff (compiling, downloading, extracting). Although I'm not really sure how much that helps. I also noticed that I like to use 'I' in my sentences and it annoys me.
Did anyone mention mounting some bin or lib files in ram? Or mounting your firefox profile for the ricers among you?

kilosan
January 13th, 2010, 02:32 AM
why bother with large ram

power users need it, but the majority and casual ones do not. its the reason why windows vista/7 is where is it now, "why bother with win7/vista" my xp is doing the job.

alexfish
January 13th, 2010, 02:33 AM
Small rams can't hit that hard. And their horns are not so big and twisty. Large rams are majestic and keep intruders away, but they make dirty in the house and like to climb on the roof and on the trees in the backyard.

Anyway, I have 2G of RAM, but the second one is catching spider webs from not being used. I don't think I ever saw my laptop using more than 1G. I keep repeating myself that I can keep documents and programs open with no problems, but I don't do it. I have one folder mounted in the ram (though I do have a saddle with which to mount the ram, the big one), I sometimes use it to watch video from ram when the disk is busy with intensive stuff (compiling, downloading, extracting). Although I'm not really sure how much that helps. I also noticed that I like to use 'I' in my sentences and it annoys me.
Did anyone mention mounting some bin or lib files in ram? Or mounting your firefox profile for the ricers among you?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Large_Herdwick_ram.jpg

3rdalbum
January 13th, 2010, 02:44 AM
When you play or rip DVDs, the DVD data gets cached into RAM and not freed. This means that, until you reboot, your cache is full of this now-useless data rather than of the stuff that can be of use in speeding up your computer.

I now have 6 GiB of RAM which means that, after ripping a 4.7GiB DVD there's still some room for operating system and regular cache in RAM. Minimal slowdown.

MasterNetra
January 13th, 2010, 02:46 AM
Also large amount of ram helps with rendering 3D scenes for 3D animation (production) which is usually no small task for the computer.

spupy
January 13th, 2010, 03:01 AM
When you play or rip DVDs, the DVD data gets cached into RAM and not freed. This means that, until you reboot, your cache is full of this now-useless data rather than of the stuff that can be of use in speeding up your computer.

I now have 6 GiB of RAM which means that, after ripping a 4.7GiB DVD there's still some room for operating system and regular cache in RAM. Minimal slowdown.

What makes you think it's not freed? The kernel is not that stupid.

cascade9
January 13th, 2010, 01:12 PM
True, but! the processor also makes a funny noise and the monitor shows both cores at 100% when I do things like that.

I guess I'll be happy I have the extra RAM eventually what i should really be complaining about is the processor heh. Still, it more than suits my needs. It's just that modern choice disease where you always wonder what might have been.

That 'funny noise' is probably just your CPU fan going to 100% speed due to load. Provided that your not getting any instability, or temps are going to high (both of which shouldnt happen), its not a problem.


If all the programs you run can fit in 512K of memory, then it doesn't matter if you have 512K or 100G of RAM. The problems starts when the amount of required memory exceeds the physical amount of memory. Then the OS starts using the swap area. Thats when you see your HDD indicator always flickering (its called trashing.) Basically, the OS swaps some inactive programs out of the RAM onto the swap area and makes room for currently active programs (remember, programs can ONLY run in RAM.)

So, say, all you do is use firefox to access gmail.com, ubuntuforums.org and play solitaire, you probably do not need more than 512K of RAM. But there are others who use their computers for much more. And in most cases, 512K is NOT enough.

512K o.O *checks calender* Yep, its 2010, not 1980.

You meant '512MB'. Even then, depending on use, I'll disagree. Run a lot of tabs, open gmail, play a youtube vid, or open some of the media players and you'll go past 512MB.


If you actually read the thread, somewhere early i gave a more detailed explanation of how more ram speeds up everyday stuff (firefox, file indexing, compiz, etc), but by far the biggest benefit of extra ram is larger fs caches, they reduce iowaits, save energy (lets laptops run longer, desktops run cooler) and allow smoother multitasking (by holding writes in ram until the write can be done for real without affecting other processes). Basically

isn't even remotely true, so closing the thread after such tripe would be a bad idea.

+1. On both points.

Keyper7
January 13th, 2010, 01:43 PM
how big of a part does just simply ''showing off'' play in your RAM choice

Given the five long pages of valid RAM usage that precedes this post of yours, I'd say that for most people here it plays a very small part. Probably a non-existent one.

I don't mean to be rude, but your posts in this thread kinda sound like you're desperately trying to convince yourself that other people use too many RAM unnecessarily and you're cooler than them for not doing the same.

spupy
January 13th, 2010, 01:59 PM
I constantly have around 1400MB free from my RAM. Should I use a swap? As in, is there a point in swap if there is more than enough ram? I turned it off once and had no problems. Right now there are only 40MB in the swap.

Xbehave
January 13th, 2010, 02:29 PM
I constantly have around 1400MB free from my RAM. Should I use a swap? As in, is there a point in swap if there is more than enough ram? I turned it off once and had no problems. Right now there are only 40MB in the swap.
If you want to hibernate then yes, I'd also check that your not using that ram for caching/preloading, because if so having some swap to let you pop out useless ram will probably be a little bit useful.

forrestcupp
January 13th, 2010, 02:35 PM
When you play or rip DVDs, the DVD data gets cached into RAM and not freed. This means that, until you reboot, your cache is full of this now-useless data rather than of the stuff that can be of use in speeding up your computer.

That's not true. That would be one major memory leak! Whoever programmed that media player/ripper would be beat to a pulp by the masses.

Besides, most commercial DVD movies are actually way more than 4.7 GB. If it were all done in RAM, 99% of the population couldn't do anything with DVDs on their computers because they wouldn't have enough RAM.

3rdalbum
January 13th, 2010, 02:52 PM
What makes you think it's not freed? The kernel is not that stupid.

Re-read my post carefully: The data is put into cache, not into 'active' use. Parts of the data will be taken out of RAM if another program needs it, but the data does stay in cache and seems to prevent other things from going into the cache.

Yes I know that most commercial DVDs are more than enough to totally fill my RAM, but if I'm making 'copies of copies' then I do retain speed, as the DVD image going into the cache doesn't force other things to be purged.

barnex
January 13th, 2010, 02:59 PM
I noticed a huge increase in snappyness after switching from 1GB to 2GB, running KDE. Although that was in the early days of KDE 4 where the window manager alone could eat up hundreds of MBytes. Nowadays I rarely use over 512MB in total, so I guess you have a point.

Dragonbite
January 13th, 2010, 03:34 PM
On laptops, more ram gives you more room to suspend to RAM.

I think to suspend to Disk, you need a swap partition for it to go into.

e24ohm
January 13th, 2010, 03:44 PM
I use an older Celeron from around 2002, with 1000 MB of RAM. This does the job for email, word processing, and as a little audio player from an CLI; however, if I try to watch a DVD, play audio from the GUI, or even youtube videos - the machine skips, and processor usage jumps to 90% and RAM is not much better. I understand this is mainly the processor; however, a great deal of RAM is being used.

At work, I run 8000 MB to run my VMware and Virtual box OS with no issues.

I think it really depends on your computing needs.

JohnFH
January 13th, 2010, 03:56 PM
Re-read my post carefully: The data is put into cache, not into 'active' use. Parts of the data will be taken out of RAM if another program needs it, but the data does stay in cache and seems to prevent other things from going into the cache.

Yes I know that most commercial DVDs are more than enough to totally fill my RAM, but if I'm making 'copies of copies' then I do retain speed, as the DVD image going into the cache doesn't force other things to be purged.

The data will not stay in cache indefinitely and prevent other data from going into cache. That's just nonsense I'm afraid. "Seems to prevent other things" ... I think that statement may need to be a little bit more specific if you want it to support your argument. Also I haven't a clue what logic you are using when you talk about copies of copies retaining speed, etc.


I think it really depends on your computing needs.

Exactly. That's why there are many different answers in this thread to the original question.

Xbehave
January 13th, 2010, 04:00 PM
On laptops, more ram gives you more room to suspend to RAM.
Nope, suspend to ram just suspends everything, it isn't affected by ram size


I think to suspend to Disk, you need a swap partition for it to go into.Yeah, to suspend to Disk you need enough free swap, to fit the used ram (ignoring cache), so you generally need a swap the same size as your ram (but if you use your swap you need more and if you have lots of "unused" ram you can get by with less. BTW if you notice that your computer is slightly slower after a hibernate/resume cycle it is because the default suspend software does not hibernate your fs caches (you need to setup tuxonice to do that)


The data will not stay in cache indefinitely and prevent other data from going into cache. That's just nonsense I'm afraid. "Seems to prevent other things" ... I think that statement may need to be a little bit more specific if you want it to support your argument. Also I haven't a clue what logic you are using when you talk about copies of copies retaining speed, etc.
I think it may be a misunderstanding because linux is in no rush to unswap data, so if you do something that pushes data out into the swap, linux won't pull that data back into ram until it needs it, so while the ram is freed it may look like it's not.

m4tic
January 13th, 2010, 04:31 PM
I guess its fine you're all overdosing on RAM and not drugs

cascade9
January 13th, 2010, 05:27 PM
I use an older Celeron from around 2002, with 1000 MB of RAM. This does the job for email, word processing, and as a little audio player from an CLI; however, if I try to watch a DVD, play audio from the GUI, or even youtube videos - the machine skips, and processor usage jumps to 90% and RAM is not much better. I understand this is mainly the processor; however, a great deal of RAM is being used.

At work, I run 8000 MB to run my VMware and Virtual box OS with no issues.

Skipping on DVDs and youtube might be video driver/flash releated, but skipping while playing audio? That shouldnt happen. I can play audio on a P3 866 with 384MB and while things sure happen slower than without load, it doesnt skip.


I guess its fine you're all overdosing on RAM and not drugs

I guess its fine that there is 9 pages of reasons why some people need more RAM. Or had you already decided that 'large RAM' is pointless so your just not reading?

Dont think that because 512MB is fine for you, that it will work for everybody else. This says it all-


I think it really depends on your computing needs.

TyrantWave
January 13th, 2010, 05:56 PM
I use Blender and 3DS Max a lot.

I need all the RAM I can get.

I also help in development of Apophysis.

sudoer541
January 13th, 2010, 06:02 PM
because some of us use other operating systems, and do work on our computers. And those who don't work, they play games.

/thread

+1

solitaire
January 13th, 2010, 06:03 PM
Well you could do what I do if you have loads of spare RAM in your system; Creare a RamDrive...

Well In my 1Gb of laptop ram i've allocated 128Mb as a RamDrive for */tmp/* and pointed Firefox and Chrome's cache file to */tmp/*

It noticibly speeds up getting things from cache. Also it has the benefit of wiping the cache files on shutdown! I've also dumped my ~/.thumbnails/ folder there too!


Update!!!

Got my var and tmp mixxed up for a second!! lol

sudoer541
January 13th, 2010, 06:04 PM
why bother with large graphic cards. 512MB is too much and I can survive with a 16MB video card. [sarcasm]

Grenage
January 13th, 2010, 06:07 PM
What a lengthy thread, for what could be succinctly summarised with:

Q:
Why bother with large ram?

A:
More RAM makes the system faster when using many programs, or resource-hungry programs.

underquark
January 13th, 2010, 06:13 PM
I have just added a 1.5Tb drive to my system, below, solely to use as a swapfile.

No, actually, but I often have many Java things going on, Chrome on one desktop, VirtualBox on another and sometimes ProjectX humming away to convert videos. So I commonly run at about 3.7Gb memory useage but often end up in the high 7's. I did make a 10Gb swap partition with the hope of getting hibernation working but have so far failed; the swap does very occasionally get utilised.

Xbehave
January 13th, 2010, 06:23 PM
A:
More RAM makes the system faster when using many programs, or resource-hungry programs or almost anyprogram or accessing filesystems

running /var fro ramdisc is a bad idea as it means you lose logs and a lot of cached info over reboots. /tmp is expected to be wiped over reboot and /var/tmp/ can be too.

spupy
January 13th, 2010, 06:25 PM
Well you could do what I do if you have loads of spare RAM in your system; Creare a RamDrive...

Well In my 1Gb of laptop ram i've allocated 128Mb as a RamDrive for /var/ and pointed Firefox and Chrome's cache file to /var/

It noticibly speeds up getting things from cache. Also it has the benefit of wiping the cache files on shutdown! I've also dumped my ~/.thumbnails/ folder there too!

Interesting. Does it speed up Firefox noticeably?

hoppipolla
January 13th, 2010, 06:25 PM
i have two 512mb memory, i lend one to a friend sometimes. i can survive with 512mb all year round on ubuntu if i wanted. so seeing other users here with 4gig, 8gig makes me wonder. so please fill me in on why you need that much memory(ubuntuwise that is) and why others should consider upgrading their ram

because Windows hogs RAM like it's going out of fashion! lol

It hated my gigabyte so much it crashed. Twice. In as many sessions.

cariboo
January 13th, 2010, 06:43 PM
because Windows hogs RAM like it's going out of fashion! lol

It hated my gigabyte so much it crashed. Twice. In as many sessions.

Windows now, Vista/Windows 7, uses ram the same way Linux does, it caches programs you might need in ram until it is needed. Vista still needs a lot of ram, but it uses it more effectively.

solitaire
January 13th, 2010, 07:03 PM
running /var fro ramdisc is a bad idea as it means you lose logs and a lot of cached info over reboots. /tmp is expected to be wiped over reboot and /var/tmp/ can be too.


Opps!!!
I ment /tmp/ not /var/!! lol!!!
I need to proof read more!!

I've fixed my post!

solitaire
January 13th, 2010, 07:10 PM
Interesting. Does it speed up Firefox noticeably?

I'm on a laptop so having /tmp/ on a ram drive makes things a bit quicker.
The Laptop's hard drive is a 5200rpm model so I notice when it has to read from the disk.

To be fair I need to increase the ram drive to 256Mb, but I need to get my laptop upto 2Gb before I can do that.


If you do want to run ~/.Thumbnail and browser cache from the ramdrive you'll need to recreate some links every boot (I've got a small script which creates the links when I log in.)

*Note*
If you work with a lot of images or vides don't put ~/.Thumnails into the /tmp/ folder since you'll have to recreate the thumbnails ever time you enter a folder after a reboot. That can slow things down a LOT!!

But I don't use that much images and Videos so it's not a big issue.

Xbehave
January 13th, 2010, 07:15 PM
If you do want to run ~/.Thumbnail and browser cache from the ramdrive you'll need to recreate some links every boot (I've got a small script which creates the links when I log in.)
I think a better idea whould be to setup readahead to preload the files to ram, while keeping the cache on your disc so it doesn't need generating on boot

alexfish
January 13th, 2010, 07:20 PM
What a lengthy thread, for what could be succinctly summarised with:

Q:

A:

A :Longer than a ball of Rams Wool

Tristam Green
January 13th, 2010, 07:49 PM
I don't know why this thread has gotten so long - I answered the question.

hoppipolla
January 13th, 2010, 10:04 PM
Windows now, Vista/Windows 7, uses ram the same way Linux does, it caches programs you might need in ram until it is needed. Vista still needs a lot of ram, but it uses it more effectively.

You wouldn't think it to look at it. That's all I can say, I mean people SAY lots of things but when push comes to shove, Linux makes 1 gig run rings around anything Winblows can do with it sorreeeee! It's the absolute truth :)

m4tic
January 16th, 2010, 07:58 PM
i read the responses and i don't think i will upgrade, now i know it's just not for me

Psumi
January 16th, 2010, 09:08 PM
You wouldn't think it to look at it. That's all I can say, I mean people SAY lots of things but when push comes to shove, Linux makes 1 gig run rings around anything Winblows can do with it sorreeeee! It's the absolute truth :)

I heard that someone got Windows 7 running on a 64 MB RAM machine with only 10 GB of space.

lisati
January 16th, 2010, 09:17 PM
I heard that someone got Windows 7 running on a 64 MB RAM machine with only 10 GB of space.

Don't know about Windows 7 but I managed to get Ubuntu running on a machine with 64Mb RAM and a 3GB HDD. It meant resorting to an installation of 6.06 (amongst other things the installer for newer versions seems to stall) and no GUI.

Xbehave
January 16th, 2010, 09:34 PM
Don't know about Windows 7 but I managed to get Ubuntu running on a machine with 64Mb RAM and a 3GB HDD. It meant resorting to an installation of 6.06 (amongst other things the installer for newer versions seems to stall) and no GUI.I always use the alt installer and my full(with debuging info, build tools,headers and all) install rarely creeps above 3GB HDD(+a largely unused 2G swap), I'd be surprised if you couldn't fit a lighter install inside 1GB(+ swap). 64MB of ram must limit what you can actually run though, no FF, no pdf reader, no OO (i guess maybe abiword/gnumeric might work), what could you actually do on the machine?

lisati
January 16th, 2010, 09:42 PM
I always use the alt installer and my full(with debuging info, build tools,headers and all) install rarely creeps above 3GB HDD(+a largely unused 2G swap), I'd be surprised if you couldn't fit a lighter install inside 1GB(+ swap). 64MB of ram must limit what you can actually run though, no FF, no pdf reader, no OO (i guess maybe abiword/gnumeric might work), what could you actually do on the machine?

Puppy works on my old machine, but it's too slow. I tried the alternate installs of both Ubuntu & Debian, most of the time they got stuck around the partitioner, haven't figured out why yet. The machine is old and tired. At least what I've got on it at the moment is usable as a backup, if a bit slow by today's standards, when I need to take my main desktop offline for maintenance. It'll be good for playing around with email servers when my ISP actually processes the request I put in for them to take their port 25 filters off my connection.

Dark Aspect
January 16th, 2010, 10:10 PM
i have two 512mb memory, i lend one to a friend sometimes. i can survive with 512mb all year round on ubuntu if i wanted. so seeing other users here with 4gig, 8gig makes me wonder. so please fill me in on why you need that much memory(ubuntuwise that is) and why others should consider upgrading their ram

Why bother having a hard drive at all?

Just because you don't need something doesn't mean its not nice to have. Sure most users here can make due with > 1GB with lightweight programs but why do that if you have the ability to run something better. Like wise you don't need a hard drive to have a fully usable system with a LiveCD+Flash drive.

n0dix
January 17th, 2010, 02:37 AM
I only want in a near future run all my programs in memory ram and not depend on the hdd.

Regenweald
January 17th, 2010, 02:49 AM
In addition to all of the replies, when you use the development cycle of Ubuntu, sometimes you may run into memory leaks, my system has 2 gigs but rarely goes over 450 under normal use, BUT, I'd hate to be testing some new updates, encounter a memory leak and have my system buckle under the weight. extra and fast memory is a nice buffer considering i no longer create a swap partition.