Currently Being ModeratedMar 19, 2011 7:48 AM (in response to DChabot)Hi,
still along the line of "possibly exaggerated memory usage", I have taken 2 screenshots (to include all open processes) showing that with only 2 applications open (Finder and Activity Monitor), I have 2.28 GB of free memory, 1.018 GB of "resident" (wired) memory, 0.916 GB of active memory and 3.83 GB of inactive memory. What puzzles me is the nearly 2 GB for wired + active because if I sum up the memory usage of all processes shown in Activity Monitor, I get about 1.4 GB...
It is like if something used memory, quit but did not release memory? Or is this a naive interpretation?
As for dear kernel_task, it was using 570.2 MB at the time, again something I've never seen on Core 2 Duo Macs.
Again, I do have screenshots to send to anybody interested.
DenisMacBook Pro 2.2 GHz i7, 8 GB RAM, Mac OS X (10.6.6)
Currently Being ModeratedApr 2, 2011 5:21 PM (in response to DChabot)Same here. MBPro 2011, 2,2 Ghz 8Go ram
Kernel_tarsk consuming from 450 to 800 Mo..
I use lot of ram in audio applications (logic9, spectrasonics, eastwest, toontrack..), 800 Go of soundbanks located on external DD with sonnet tempo sata card.
I've built the exact software copy of my Mac pro (quadcore intel 2010) on witch Kernel task runs under 200 mo..
Everything else is fine, CPU usage is normal, but it's still ennoying..
Didnt found any solution on the net..
THX for telling me if you find something
JM (france)MBP 2011 Qd 2,2ghz 8Go, Mac OS X (10.6.7)
Currently Being ModeratedApr 12, 2011 7:49 PM (in response to DChabot)I've got the same thing going on with my new 15" MBP (4Gb RAM). kernel_task is currently eating 607.9Mb of my memory. I don't recall it ever being an issue with my early 2007 13" MacBook w/ 2Gb RAM.15" MBP (2011, quad i7 2.2GHz, 4Gb RAM), Mac OS X (10.6.7), iPhone 4, iOS 4.3.1
Currently Being ModeratedApr 13, 2011 8:46 AM (in response to DChabot)Same here. Got a brand new 2011 MBP with 8GB ram. Strait after booting, kernel_task is at 670 MB. Could it be that 64 bits has anything to do with it? After (if I'm not mistaken) all until now, all machines (except the new Pro's) run in 32 bits mode by default, these MBP run 64.
If I stress the machine a bit, kernel_task is close to 900 MB.MBP 15 2.0 i7, Mac OS X (10.6.7)
Currently Being ModeratedApr 27, 2011 11:01 PM (in response to DChabot)
So there is still no information or update concerning this issue? What's the point of 4 GB of ram if you can only use half of it?
Currently Being ModeratedMay 16, 2011 5:11 AM (in response to DChabot)
I've got the same issue on my 2011 MBP (15", 2,0Ghz 4GB Ram).
kernel_task is using about 500MB Ram right after booting, also there is a lot of Ram reserved.
In combination with starting a virtual machine, it completely hangs my machine because of the whole swapping...
Currently Being ModeratedMay 17, 2011 7:31 PM (in response to AnD3rS)
This seems to be a problem with the new macbooks. I have the lower-end 15" 2011 MBP with 4 gigs of RAM, and my kernel_task consumes around 600 megs all the time. Apple, can you help us out here?
Additionally, my wired memory is always huge (sometimes over 1 gig) and the amounts of memory usage reported in activity monitor per application and total do not add up. I'm not sure if these are related. I'm not even sure where the RAM used by kernel_task goes, into wired or active memory.
Edit:DChabot, I read your second message, your RAM problem is EXACTLY like mine. All of the processes add up to 1.5 gigs, but the reported is 2.36 gigs (1.06 wired, 1.30 active). This happens consistently.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 17, 2011 9:46 PM (in response to DChabot)
So I found this post in the related articles section.
It's pretty old, but it looks like the problem reared its head back in 10.5. I think it might be because OS X knows it has the memory to allocate for kernel_task, so it really just does it without much direction from the user. Im reading ~350MB with an uptime of about an hour right now, but earlier I ran Parallels and it was embarrassingly slow, with the memory split 50/50. It does get bad though, when it spikes to about 550, 600MB. I'm going to the Apple store tomorrow to see if the "Geniuses" can give me a good explanation.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 18, 2011 8:44 AM (in response to LSUAMDG)
Thanks for the info. Maybe consider pointing the Geniuses to this thread, so they can see that this isn't just your problem and maybe they can submit a report back to apple or something.
Let us know if you find a solution, this is a real PITA!
Currently Being ModeratedMay 22, 2011 5:42 PM (in response to DChabot)
I recently finally upgraded to the new, beautiful Sandy Bridge (Early 2011) MBP from the original MBP 1,1 in 2006. The 1,1 had 2GB of RAM, and its kernel_task was using about 250MB RAM at any given time.
Booting up my new MBP, with nothing open, no menu items, etc. kernel_task uses 650MB+ before I even do anything. My new MBP has 8GB of RAM, so it's not a "huge" issue, but I thought I would never have to worry about memory usage with a laptop as powerful as this.
Both laptops were running 10.6.7 - what gives?? I shouldn't have to check Activity Monitor this much on such a new computer. I can see that my new MBP uses twice the RAM as my old one did, doing the same tasks.
Perhaps a memory leak is to blame? I'm going to test under Lion and see if maybe the 10.6.7 kernel is the culprit.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 22, 2011 6:40 PM (in response to numonium)
Attached you'll find two screenshots: the first is Activity Monitor taken on an i7 MBP 2011 with 8GB RAM in 10.6.7. Nothing else is open except for Finder; you'll notice that kernel_task is using a lot of RAM:
Unfortunately, in the second screenshot, you'll notice that Lion DP3 exacerbates the issue, increasing kernel_task RAM even more:
To Apple/Steve/Geniuses: What gives??
I hope you don't give any "Microsoft/Windows-esque" arguments in reply, such as:
- If you have more RAM, Windows OS X will use it
- This is actually a performance increase.
I would totally believe the caching argument, except that both screens were taken immediately after a cold boot, so nothing would be in the OS cache. I'll cross my fingers and hope that 10.6.8 and its respective Lion update will fix this problem. This is definitely not the performance I was hoping for after blowing my life savings on a (still) amazing new computer.MacBook Pro, 10.6.7, Lion DP3, 8GB RAM, i7 Quad
Currently Being ModeratedMay 23, 2011 8:53 AM (in response to numonium)
"This is definitely not the performance I was hoping for after blowing my life savings on a (still) amazing new computer."
I hear that... Come on, Apple.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 23, 2011 9:57 AM (in response to wyager)
You aren't talking to Apple in these forums, so don't bother telling Apple what to do. We're all just other Mac users here.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 23, 2011 12:22 PM (in response to eww)
No kidding, I'm not literally trying to talk to Apple... lol.
More Like This
- Retrieving data ...
- This solved my question - 10 points
- This helped me - 5 points