Q: Lion - Memory Usage Problems
-
Jul 28, 2011 9:02 AMby John Kitchen,ColoradoiPodUser wrote:
Okay, I hear all that.
But why would Activity Monitor report such different information, specifically free memory, then was reported under OS X 10.6.x?
It is the difference that had me so concerned.
I'm going to watch both Page Outs and Inactive over the next couple of days along with general performance.
Thanks for your, and everyone's input
Every OS has its own approach to Memory and Page Management, and each app has its own approach to optimization of performance.
Having lots of Free RAM may be argued to be a good thing or a bad thing. Bad in that it is a waste, good in that at that moment in time there was no RAM problem.
One good use of RAM which will deplete Free RAM is to quietly and slowly bring read-only data into RAM, just in case it's needed. If it's not referenced, the pages can be stolen with no impact, but if the data is required, time-critical I/O has been avoided.
I would expect that with all the changes in going from Snow Leopard to Lion, you should see changes to the general state of the pie and overall behavior. History tells us that that over time, OSes get better at using RAM, but if you don't have enough, new OS releases can hurt you.
Keep watching the Page Outs!
-
Jul 28, 2011 9:04 AMby mightymilk,I suppose Roo Machell on Page 3 isn't having performance issues. I can name more but what's the point, you'll still deny it.
So much for your theory
R C-R wrote:
Actually, you are the only person specifically mentioning performance issues on page 1. A few others talk about high memory use, but it isn't clear if performance is suffering because of that. At least one user on that page reported no abnormal memory use, & another that it disappeared when they uninstalled Flash.
And no matter how often users trying to help suggest checking & posting page out info, most are not doing that, despite the fact that it is the most useful info Activity Monitor provides about memory use.
If you are firmly convinced this is a problem inherent in the OS or Safari or whatever, & that only Apple can solve it, there is no point in continuing the discussion. We are just users, & if that is true then there is nothing we can do about it besides wait for a fix from Apple or suggest reverting to the last system that worked for you.
Of course, there is the fact to consider that some users are reposting no abnormal memory use, & that there are other factors that are known to cause performance issues, so just maybe there is something to do besides just waiting ….
-
Jul 28, 2011 9:12 AMby Dirk,Ok, I came across this thread 'cause I figured that since LION my RAM Memory is definetly less than in SL before. Using a few apps at the same time as always.
So I have read all the post adressing this issue. Hopefully I am not alone!
I tried some things and found out that the main problem is the new Safari app. While surfing on Flash Websites like Youtube and some others...watching movies / films ...the Safari Web PluginProcess is eating all the RAM up.
Even if I clear all the Safari cache and everything, quit the app - the RAM will not clear. BUT it shows in iStats Dashboard as "inactiv" So surfing the web cost about 2,5 gb of RAM and it will not be freed after quiting the app. That is strange! I tested it with browsers like Chrome and Opera and none had a problem with the RAM (no page outs) and no blocking (inactiv) of RAM...simply a bit more CPU usage.
As i have a iMac where I cannot put more RAM in as 4gb ( which I have ) I am kind of stuck here.
I understand quite well, that a new System needs more "power" and all (as we see with Mail & iTunes), but this new Safari App drives me insane and it is NOT useful (even slower than before).
By the way - the whole LION system - especially the Finder is much slower than SnowLeopard!
-
Jul 28, 2011 9:16 AMby R C-R,ColoradoiPodUser wrote:
But why would Activity Monitor report such different information, specifically free memory, then was reported under OS X 10.6.x?
Actually, at the moment I'm running 10.6.8 & Safari 5.0.5. With no other user-lauched apps running besides Activity Monitor, on this 2 GB iMac I have only around 100 MB of free memory.
Performance has not suffered in the least, even though I often run multiple memory-hungry apps. Only 1.6 MB of page outs have occurred since I started up about 24 hours ago.
I see very little difference when I start up into Lion. If anything, it seems slightly more responsive, even when free memory drops down to practically nothing.
-
Jul 28, 2011 9:17 AMby mightymilk,Dirk wrote:
Ok, I came across this thread 'cause I figured that since LION my RAM Memory is definetly less than in SL before. Using a few apps at the same time as always.
So I have read all the post adressing this issue. Hopefully I am not alone!
I tried some things and found out that the main problem is the new Safari app. While surfing on Flash Websites like Youtube and some others...watching movies / films ...the Safari Web PluginProcess is eating all the RAM up.
Even if I clear all the Safari cache and everything, quit the app - the RAM will not clear. BUT it shows in iStats Dashboard as "inactiv" So surfing the web cost about 2,5 gb of RAM and it will not be freed after quiting the app. That is strange! I tested it with browsers like Chrome and Opera and none had a problem with the RAM (no page outs) and no blocking (inactiv) of RAM...simply a bit more CPU usage.
As i have a iMac where I cannot put more RAM in as 4gb ( which I have ) I am kind of stuck here.
I understand quite well, that a new System needs more "power" and all (as we see with Mail & iTunes), but this new Safari App drives me insane and it is NOT useful (even slower than before).
By the way - the whole LION system - especially the Finder is much slower than SnowLeopard!
It's obvious to most of us there are serious Memory and Performance issues going on under Lion. For some of us it's the OS itself, or Mail, or Safari. I highly recommend leaving Feedback to Apple about this, because not everyone is affected... so it may need to be brought to their attention.
-
Jul 28, 2011 9:23 AMby harmonica01,Just installed the 8gb ram and new 5th gen hitachi 7k500 hd into my macbook unibody. Did a clean install this time, problems persist but swapping between apps is much improved.
My wife suggested turning off the applications' new feature of restoring old pages that we saw flipping through customization in the system preferences. That took us from sub 2gb free to 5.68gb free right about where I think is comfortable at least for us.
The machine is running imovie, iphoto, i tunes, mail with 5 RSS feeds constantly updating, and all my regular news/social/and business websites just fine.
There is a screen shot for the more understanding in apple's activity monitor. I need to get back to work and can now just fine.
Here is where the check box is in system prefs-->General youll see it at bottom.
-
Jul 28, 2011 9:21 AMby mightymilk,harmonica01 wrote:
Just installed the 8gb ram and new 5th gen hitachi 7k500 hd into my macbook unibody. Did a clean install this time, problems persist but swapping between apps is much improved.
My wife suggested turning off the applications' new feature of restoring old pages that we saw flipping through customization in the system preferences. That took us from sub 2gb free to 5.68gb free right about where I think is comfortable at least for us.
The machine is running imovie, iphoto, i tunes, mail with 5 RSS feeds constantly updating, and all my regular news/social/and business websites just fine.
There is a screen shot for the more understanding in apple's activity monitor. I need to get back to work and can now just fine.
Here is where the check box is in system prefs-->General youll see it at bottom.
Thanks for the info! I'm going to disabling the Restore option and if that doesn't work I'll try doing a clean install. It's nice to see someone posting helpful information!
-
Jul 28, 2011 9:24 AMby R C-R,mightymilk wrote:
I suppose Roo Machell on Page 3 isn't having performance issues. I can name more but what's the point, you'll still deny it.
<sigh> I never said nobody is having performance issues.
If all you want to do is simplify things to the point of absurdity, you can't help anyone, yourself included.
-
Jul 28, 2011 9:29 AMby mightymilk,You never said I was the only person having performance issues?
R C-R wrote:
Actually, you are the only person specifically mentioning performance issues on page 1. A few others talk about high memory use, but it isn't clear if performance is suffering because of that. At least one user on that page reported no abnormal memory use, & another that it disappeared when they uninstalled Flash.
Do you contridict yourself on a regular basis or just today?
-
Jul 28, 2011 9:41 AMby John Kitchen,mightymilk wrote:
You never said I was the only person having performance issues?
R C-R wrote:
Actually, you are the only person specifically mentioning performance issues on page 1. A few others talk about high memory use, but it isn't clear if performance is suffering because of that. At least one user on that page reported no abnormal memory use, & another that it disappeared when they uninstalled Flash.
Do you contridict yourself on a regular basis or just today?
@mightymilk.
R C-R said you were the only person on page 1. So you quoted a post from page 3 to prove him wrong. Read his/her words carefully again. You quoted them.
R C-R never posted that you were "the only person having performance issues" without that qualification, but you have made comments about actually reading the thread.
I think that R C-R has been amazingly patient. Mine has run out.
-
Jul 28, 2011 10:55 AMby mightymilk,R C-R wrote:
My patience has run out too, at least for mightymilk's carelessly simplistic comments.
I doubt this will break anyone's heart.
I misunderstood your post, that's an honest mistake.
1GB of RAM for 1 Tab in Safari is not normal. 4GB of RAM for Mail is not normal. A slow memory leak that consumes the entire systems memory is not normal, especially while the user isn't even using his computer. Sluggish performace while running regular OS X components is not normal. Snow Leopard never operated like this, neither did Leopard. All have this has been acknowleged by other users.
Did you notice you and John Kitch are the only 2 people who think Lion is handling memory properly?
-
Jul 28, 2011 11:40 AMby John Kitchen,mightymilk wrote:
I misunderstood your post, that's an honest mistake.
Not the first time this has happened.
You have made a few more mistakes.
- You claim that Safari consuming 1GB of RAM is not normal, and that this must be a Lion problem. I have Safari running in this Snow Leopard iMac right now and it is consuming 1.05GBs of RAM. 2 tabs open. No Lion.
- You claim to know what I'm thinking about the properness of Lion's memory handling. You don't know what I'm thinking and if I were to put it in writing, I would not be so vague as to use the term "properly".
- You claim that memory consumption can't change if the user doesn't interact with the computer. Macs have many time based events which trigger processes which consume RAM.
- You assume that just because your computer did not show sluggish performance under prior version of OS X, that there is no way it could be sluggish under Lion unless it is the result of a memory leak. I have already provided a lengthy post explaining the most common issue when moving to new Operating Systems, which you chose to dismiss for your preferred diagnosis of "memory leak" back on the 4th page of this thread
- The final mistake I will list is that while you owe R C-R an apology for delivering the insult "Do you contridict (sic) yourself on a regular basis or just today?", you have failed to provide a public apology.
All of these are mistakes. The fourth one is one that you make repeatedly.
PS "I'm not trying to insult your intelligence but..." was another mistake
