1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next 73 Replies Latest reply: Jun 23, 2013 9:25 AM by chef098 Go to original post
  • 30. Re: Over 3GB of swap files with 16GB of RAM?
    fbeckman Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Hi

     

    I have a Macbook early 2011 and a Macbook pro Retina both with Mountain Lion. Yesterday I moved my Aperture Library to the new Retina Mac. So I started the Aperture and try to sort out pictures that are not required. After some minutes the new Macbook was the switch to another picture it was extreamly slow

     

    I opend the activty Monitor ... swap more than > 3GB

    But the joke was that enough system memory was free !!

     

    If the system is booted and I use some applications all is fine, if you open Aperture (in my case)  and you only watch photos he will begin to swap.

     

    So it is Mountain Lion caused or Aperture .. I think

    Both Macbooks have the same behavoir !

     

    Regards

     

    Frank

  • 31. Re: Over 3GB of swap files with 16GB of RAM?
    William Kucharski Level 6 Level 6 (14,705 points)

    Note among other things that memory availability as reported by Activity Monitor does not reflect the granularity of the free memory nor does it reflect the fact that swap sizes grow in large increments.

     

    For example, if free memory were fragmented such that 5 GB total were available but only in disparate 1 GB chunks, the OS may have needed to write 2+ GB to swap in order to fulfill a request for 2 GB of continuous space.

     

    Swap isn't only used when RAM is exhausted in total but instead may be needed when memory of the requested type has been exhausted.

  • 32. Re: Over 3GB of swap files with 16GB of RAM?
    fbeckman Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Hi William

     

    I disabled swap for testing, if I used Aperture the memory will be blow up extreamly (photo switching slows down). Iphoto with the same pictures not. In the moment I try different Applictions and he has not swap out anything... (enabled swap again)

     

    I'm a little bit supprised, under Lion I had no trouble with memory and swapping (all Macbooks have 8G RAM). In my vaction I worked with Apertue (Lion, Mountain Lion was not released) and it was never a problem with the performance.

     

    They changed the memory management in Mountain Lion ?

     

    My opinion is that swapping is posion for my SSD's

     

    Regards

     

    Frank

  • 33. Re: Over 3GB of swap files with 16GB of RAM?
    etresoft Level 7 Level 7 (24,270 points)

    fbeckman wrote:

     

    They changed the memory management in Mountain Lion ?

    Lion runs with a 32-bit kernel by default. In Mountain Lion, that changed to the 64-bit kernel. Some applications that were limited in their RAM consumption before are no longer limited. I don't know about Aperture, but I know Photoshop behaves entirely differently. In Lion, Photoshop is limited to 3.2 GB of RAM but in Mountain Lion it can have it all. There is probably something similar going on with Aperture. You can try Adobe's instructions on running in 32-bit mode if you feedl RAM-constrained.

  • 34. Re: Over 3GB of swap files with 16GB of RAM?
    megagram Level 1 Level 1 (90 points)

    etresoft wrote:

     

    Lion runs with a 32-bit kernel by default

    You gotta stop spewing all this irrelevant, inaccruate information, man. Lion runs with either a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel depending on your hardware! http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3773

     

    Also, it is completely irrelevant whether the kernel is running 32-bit or 64-bit mode. 64-bit applications can still run on top of a 32-bit kernel! Therefore, on 64-bit hardware, running a 32-bit kernel, Photoshop would still install and run as a 64-bit application and would have all of the memory access it needs (ie 4GB+ compared to 32-bit).

     

    I'm going to start a new job I think, and it's going to be correcting all the wrong things you say. 18,000 posts? Whew!

  • 35. Re: Over 3GB of swap files with 16GB of RAM?
    etresoft Level 7 Level 7 (24,270 points)

    megagram wrote:

     

    Also, it is completely irrelevant whether the kernel is running 32-bit or 64-bit mode. 64-bit applications can still run on top of a 32-bit kernel! Therefore, on 64-bit hardware, running a 32-bit kernel, Photoshop would still install and run as a 64-bit application and would have all of the memory access it needs (ie 4GB+ compared to 32-bit).

     

    I'm going to start a new job I think, and it's going to be correcting all the wrong things you say. 18,000 posts? Whew!

    Be my guest . The 18,000 figure does not represent posts. It represents points awarded by other members of Apple Support Communities for helpful and solved answers. There used to be an indicator of how many posts a person had, but that was lost in the last upgrade. A person could theoretically get 18,000 points in only 1,800 replies.

     

    If you read that tutorial closely, you'll see that there is, in fact, no "correct" category of answers at all - only "helpful" and "solved". This isn't a community for people to spout off on how much they know, it is for people to learn more about their Apple products and get help with problems. In a venue like this, there is no way to have perfect knowledge of someone else's machine. Many suggestions are wrong but they help lead people to learn more and maybe figure out the problem.

     

    Consider what would have happened if everyone in this thread had give you the standard "me too" answer of - "Yeah, Mountain Lion is way slower than Lion and especially Snow Leopard. That is a virtual memory bug." You would have given us praise and helpful/solved points instead of insults. You would be putting up with this problem for years, waiting for an update that never came. Instead, we challenged your assumptions and made you dig deeper and find the actual problem.

     

    You're welcome.

  • 36. Re: Over 3GB of swap files with 16GB of RAM?
    megagram Level 1 Level 1 (90 points)

    I just shudder to think how many of those people who marked one of your posts as "Helpful" (as I did in the beginning of this thread) because it seemed like it would provide the correct answer. Until of course I asked for clarification and a source and you couldn't back it up--it was just some weird hunch that you had developed. Great. Wish I could take back the "helpful" tag. Oh well.

  • 37. Re: Over 3GB of swap files with 16GB of RAM?
    etresoft Level 7 Level 7 (24,270 points)

    megagram wrote:

     

    I just shudder to think how many of those people who marked one of your posts as "Helpful" (as I did in the beginning of this thread) because it seemed like it would provide the correct answer.

     

    What good does spouting off knowledge do for anyone? In some situations, I make a point to avoid giving someone the "correct" answer. I would rather give them a hint about where to find the answer so that they learn more about the system, as you have done.

     

    Until of course I asked for clarification and a source and you couldn't back it up--it was just some weird hunch that you had developed.

     

    I have developed many weird hunches over the years. In this case, I tried again to track down where I developed this particular "hunch" and, miraculously, found it. The "sophisticated fakery" I was talking about is memory overcommit. This mailing lists post looks familiar. It may be the source you were looking for. This post may lead one to more details about modern memory management. Specifics about MacOS X are hard to come by. MacOS X Internals is the best reference but is quite old. If you want to know more, you will have to enroll in a graduate-level computer science program with a good research program in operating systems. Virtual memory management is not an area where end-users need to be concerned. Anyone experiencing problems should look elsewhere.

     

    Wish I could take back the "helpful" tag. Oh well.

     

    Perhaps you could complain to the moderators in Using Apple Support Communities.

  • 38. Re: Over 3GB of swap files with 16GB of RAM?
    David A. Gatwood Level 3 Level 3 (580 points)

    If anything, running a few apps in 32-bit mode is likely to increase memory pressure because you'll have to have both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of your frameworks loaded into RAM at the same time—unless, of course, there are bugs that cause the 64-bit implementation of a particular app to be a pig.

  • 39. Re: Over 3GB of swap files with 16GB of RAM?
    fbeckman Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Hi

     

    the kernel runs in 64Bit mode...

     

    Aperture and Lightroom 4 both apps are swapping out

    Iphoto a 32Bit application runs fine and swaps nothing out.

     

    The programs are using different kinds of memory managment as the 32Bit ?

     

    I had no problem with Lion and swapping, since Mountain Lion it is a big issue.

     

    Regards

     

    Frank

  • 40. Re: Over 3GB of swap files with 16GB of RAM?
    etresoft Level 7 Level 7 (24,270 points)

    That was just a suggestion thrown out for someone to try. I have noticed a trend of otherwise reasonable people who claim that Lion/Mountain Lion needs at least 8 GB to run comfortably. I have been unable to reproduce any unusual virtual memory issues in Lion even when running in a 2 GB VM and opening 2 GB images. The difference is always that those people run Photoshop and I don't. Perhaps Photoshop does need 8GB in Lion whereas it ran fine with 4 in Snow Leopard - but that's Photoshop's problem. Why not stock up on RAM if you can afford Photoshop. It's just piles and piles of money.

  • 41. Re: Over 3GB of swap files with 16GB of RAM?
    fbeckman Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Hi

     

    I've 8GB of RAM.

     

    It could be an issue of the kernel scan rates (hi / low marks ) ... If you open many pictures successively, you see the available free mem will be decrease very fast (switch from photo to another). Then he begins to swap !

    If you do nothing the free mem will be increase but the swap out memory will be swaped out. If I close Aperture the swap will be decrase, but a little bit pageout data will be there.. That are other applications that are swaped out by the kernel.

     

    Regards

     

    Frank

  • 42. Re: Over 3GB of swap files with 16GB of RAM?
    bobpage87 Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    I've had a similar problem, I didn't know I could look up swap space in activity monitor, but I whipped out Grand Perspective, and all those green blocks in the upper right are 1gb swap files. All created in the space of about 2 mins. The system slowed right down, and then I had to start force quitting apps because there was 0mb left on the hard drive, before restarting. They're now all gone on a restart. Definitely a bug somewhere!

    Screen Shot 2012-08-14 at 12.48.30.png

  • 43. Re: Over 3GB of swap files with 16GB of RAM?
    pcunix Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    I would agree.  My 2.5 GHz Intel Core i5 iMac with 12GB never had the slightest problem until Mountain Lion.

     

    Now, mid afternoon or so, it starts getting slower and slower and although I can't see anything in "w" or Activity Monitor or "top" that seems out of place, there ARE large numbers of swap files and I think this starts after the system has been running its screen saver..

     

    When it last turned to molassess, all I was running was two Chrome Windows with a total of 28 tabs and two terminal windows with a total of 5 tabs.

     

    That's it. 

  • 44. Re: Over 3GB of swap files with 16GB of RAM?
    nalundgaard Level 1 Level 1 (5 points)

    Hi guys, I am very excited that I found this thread! I posted about the same issue in this thread about what appears to be the same issue—swap usage growing with no pageouts.

     

    There's a lot of irrelevant discussion in this thread, IMO. I am not interested in the source of that side discussion, but I do want to say that I think that a critical point has been missed among people discussing this issue. Swap usage in OS X has long been the subject of much groaning and gnashing of teeth among users. Sometimes it doesn't make much sense. I've been using OS X for about a decade now, since OS X 10.2. I've suffered through many machines with woefully inadequate RAM for the memory hogs that various OS X apps can be, and the swapping that accompanies that.

     

    This is a hugely different issue. What the OP in this thread didn't realize was important is this: 3GB (or whatever) swap usage, and no pageouts. In my ten years of using OS X and seeing heavy swap usage, I have never, ever, not one single time, ever seen a system with swap usage that doesn't show at least a few pageouts. The issue that megagram clearly has and that I have had as well (as previously linked above) is a very unusual issue where the system writes (a very large amount of data) to the pagefile without registering a pageout. That sounds like a bug to me, any way you slice it. It's also totally different than some of the issues that follow-on commenters have mentioned.

     

    So... that's my take on that. I don't want to point any fingers or start flame wars, but I want to stress how different this issue is from run-of-the-mill swap problems.

     

    Megagram, I wanted to ask you, how did you find that your fontworker process was causing the problem for you? I I tried resetting my font cache and deleting a coupld of old fonts that I don't use anymore. I still have MS Office 2011 installed, presumably with all the fonts that it installs. I don't know if that's still my problem, but I haven't even seen a "fontworker" process running or much history of one in my system logs. I do see fontd (presumably, the font daemon) running, but it seems to be behaving nicely. SOMETHING is causing a huge pagefile dump when I put my system to sleep and it goes into hibernate mode (that's the one where it writes the RAM contents out to /var/vm/sleepimage and powers down the RAM to save battery). I haven't figured out what yet. It doesn't appear to be fontworker in my case, so again I was wondering if you could give me some more insight as to how you tracked that one down? I'm thinking maybe I can use the same methodology to find my culprit. That said, I am very stumped—I've pored through log files around the sleep/wake event when the big page write seems to occur. I'm not seeing anything.