DChabot
Level 1 (145 points)

Q: kernel_task consumes a lot of RAM in early 2011 MBP, sometimes Finder too

Hi,

My old MBP3,1 (late 2007, 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo) worked quite well with 4 GB of RAM, even after weeks without restarting. In fact, I used all available RAM only on some larger analyses using R, which loads the entire dataset in memory. To be able to run these few analyses faster on my new machine (early 2011 MBP), I bought the 8 GB RAM option.

In Activity Monitor, I noticed something strange. Whereas my old MBP shows kernel_taks as using between 100 and 200 MB of RAM, the new MBP uses about 550 MB just after the machine started up and often shows over 600 after a few hours or days of use. A one year old iMac, again Core 2 Duo with 4 GB of RAM, gives a kernel_task memory usage below 200 MB after weeks of use.

I've not been able to find what kernel_task does. Is this amount (around 600 MB, but it has gone up to 800) normal? Is it managiing the additional number of cores that requires this behind the scenes amount of RAM?

Anyway, I now quite often have more than 4 GB of RAM in use even when I have only a few applications running (not even including R!), which surprises me.

Also today, after moving a lot of files back and forth between an external drive and the new MBP, after emptying the garbage can that contained a hefty number of files and doing a first Time Machine backup, the Finder ended up using 2,4 GB of RAM according to Activity Monitor. I have never seen anything like this (although I admit not having Activity Monitor on all the time). Even after the backup was finished and the external drive disconnected (in fact the machine was left idling for a few hours) cpu usage was down to nearly zero, the Finder kept its 2.4 GB of RAM. I restarted and the new RAM usage for the Finder was 26 MB. I have a screen shot showing the 2.4 GB, but I could not find a way to attach it to this message. I can send it by email on request. I don't think this Finder behavior was normal.

Somewhat worried,

Denis

MacBook Pro 2.2 GHz i7, 8 GB RAM, Mac OS X (10.6.6)

Posted on Mar 16, 2011 12:04 AM

Close
DChabot

Q: kernel_task consumes a lot of RAM in early 2011 MBP, sometimes Finder too

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

first Previous Page 6 of 15 last Next

  • by eww,

    eww eww Jul 29, 2011 12:25 PM in response to wyager
    Level 9 (52,994 points)
    Jul 29, 2011 12:25 PM in response to wyager

    With 4GB of RAM installed in my MBP 5,1 running 10.6.7, kernel task is using 178MB of RAM. FWIW, that's considerably less than the 256MB of RAM that is allocated to my integrated GPU — leading me to believe the GPU's RAM is not included in what the kernel task is reported to use.

  • by wyager,

    wyager wyager Jul 29, 2011 1:39 PM in response to eww
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jul 29, 2011 1:39 PM in response to eww

    Yes. When my computer runs out of RAM, its performance goes down. There's your proof.

     

    Please stop trying to justify the problem, the purpose of this thread is to solve it.

  • by eww,

    eww eww Jul 29, 2011 1:53 PM in response to wyager
    Level 9 (52,994 points)
    Jul 29, 2011 1:53 PM in response to wyager

    I'm not justifying anything. I've just tried to point out that what you're moaning about has always been true, since long before OS X was dreamed of.

  • by wyager,

    wyager wyager Jul 29, 2011 2:17 PM in response to eww
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jul 29, 2011 2:17 PM in response to eww

    Telling us that isn't helping anyone. We're looking for a solution, so if you don't have anything constructive to say then don't say it. Seriously, this entire thread the majority of your posts have been "stop whining guys, os x is perfect." Obviously most of the people in this thread disagree.

  • by eww,

    eww eww Jul 29, 2011 5:42 PM in response to wyager
    Level 9 (52,994 points)
    Jul 29, 2011 5:42 PM in response to wyager

    It would indeed be cheery if you'd stop whining, but please remind me where in this or any other thread I said OS X was perfect.

  • by wyager,

    wyager wyager Jul 29, 2011 7:14 PM in response to eww
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jul 29, 2011 7:14 PM in response to eww

    What ever happened to "As you suggest, I'll just go away and let you wait to hear back from Apple."?

     

    Arguing with you is counterproductive, as arguing with fanboys tends to be. Please leave us to find a solution rather than repeatedly assure us everything is OK. If everything was OK, we wouldn't be "whining" in this thread.

  • by eww,

    eww eww Jul 30, 2011 2:32 AM in response to wyager
    Level 9 (52,994 points)
    Jul 30, 2011 2:32 AM in response to wyager

    As you suggest, I'll go away and let you wait forever to hear from Apple.

  • by MacJoseph,

    MacJoseph MacJoseph Jul 30, 2011 7:55 AM in response to wyager
    Level 3 (595 points)
    Jul 30, 2011 7:55 AM in response to wyager

    Wyager

     

    You stated a few days ago what I said about Macs allocating RAM to be BS. Perhaps what I meant was the OS itself. Does the OS have anything to do with the way RAM is allocated? I agree it seems unusual that the kernel task should be eating so much RAM. Wyager I found this thread on the Apple forums though not directly related to this some knowledgeable people talk about memory usage. If you don't find it insightful please don't patronize me by saying it is bulls**t as well. Another thing I want to suggest. If you want a definitive answer to this thread start another thread and put Attention Kappy in the title followed by the issue. Kappy is the most knowledgeable person I've ever encountered on these forums. He's forgotten more than any of us combined in this thread know.

     

    Joseph

     

    Post Script: Wyager don't be arrogant, and don't patronize others. That's not what these forums are for. Everyone here is on a different level as far as knowledge goes. We're all here to learn and try to help eachother. I say this to you in kindness.

  • by MacJoseph,

    MacJoseph MacJoseph Jul 30, 2011 1:54 PM in response to wyager
    Level 3 (595 points)
    Jul 30, 2011 1:54 PM in response to wyager

    Wyager

     

     

    Here is an answer that may help you, me and everyone else unstand this issue a bit more.

     

    Regards,

     

    Joseph

  • by thawking78,

    thawking78 thawking78 Jul 30, 2011 5:17 PM in response to MacJoseph
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jul 30, 2011 5:17 PM in response to MacJoseph

    Hmph. A helpful answer, yes, although a somewhat condescending one, too. I don't think noticing what appears to be abnormal RAM usage in comaprison with other machines, and wondering what might be causing it, makes one a "pseudo-techie" who should be unilaterally ignored. But anyway, I'm glad we've managed to get some sort of resolution on this issue, such as it is.

  • by MacJoseph,

    MacJoseph MacJoseph Jul 30, 2011 7:25 PM in response to Gerard Klein
    Level 3 (595 points)
    Jul 30, 2011 7:25 PM in response to Gerard Klein

    Gerald

     

    The more RAM you put in a machine the more it is going to use. I know that probably doesn't make sense, but I know it to be true. I have 8GB of RAM and Lion is consuming almost 3GB with FF running and some other programs running in the backgorund. But it is not affecting system performance. I always have a little over 5GB free. I honestly don't think you're ever going to find a solution to the kernel task memroy usage. I Googled this and it's been an issue for people for a very long time. Google for yourself and see. I know noone wants to hear this, but adding more RAM makes this a non-issue.

     

    Joseph

  • by wyager,

    wyager wyager Jul 30, 2011 7:48 PM in response to MacJoseph
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jul 30, 2011 7:48 PM in response to MacJoseph

    Kappy's answer didn't really explain much, but it helps I guess...

     

    MacJoseph, I am not interested in palliating the problem, I am interested in eliminating it. There is a problem with the operating system, and "buying more RAM" is not a solution. What happens when I need 7 gigs of RAM?

  • by thawking78,

    thawking78 thawking78 Jul 30, 2011 7:57 PM in response to DChabot
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jul 30, 2011 7:57 PM in response to DChabot

    Wyager, I fear the only way you're going to eliminate it is to somehow manually control how much RAM is assigned to the Intel GPU, and it doesn't look like that there's any easy way of doing that:

    http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-029090.htm#increase

  • by MacJoseph,

    MacJoseph MacJoseph Jul 30, 2011 8:13 PM in response to wyager
    Level 3 (595 points)
    Jul 30, 2011 8:13 PM in response to wyager

    Wyager ....

     

    I give up. What happens when you need 7GB of RAM? Bro ...I'm out on this one. You make adding more RAM sound like something that should not be done. Strange, I thought having more RAM was a good thing.

     

    Joseph

  • by wyager,

    wyager wyager Jul 30, 2011 8:12 PM in response to thawking78
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jul 30, 2011 8:12 PM in response to thawking78

    @thawking78

    See, I think we may have been wrong about that... I believe the GPU takes up "wired" RAM, but it is not part of kernel_task. Kernel_task plus 384 megabytes (used by the graphics card) is just short of my wired memory. Same thing on my friend's macbook, but of course his kernel_task only uses 140 megs.

     

    So, the integrated graphics chipset seems to take up "wired" RAM, but is NOT part of kernel_task.

first Previous Page 6 of 15 last Next