Q: Mavericks and memory (Ram)

Davestformore wrote:

 

Anybody have an answer for this?

 

I've posted to this thread and am now getting emailed every post. Since it is still so active, it is like getting SPAMMED to death.

 

I have answered no to every email preference, but I'm still getting an email of every post.

No to every preference?

Including the right one?

dreammjpr wrote:

 

I explained in the same post that you can tell the difference between properly used RAM (wired) and the RAM used up by the file cache by subtracting 'wired' from 'used'

 

Say you have 6GB used RAM and the wired memory reports only 2.8 GB (usually the case when none of your applications are running). 6 - 2.8 = 3.2 Gb
3.2 Gigs are being used by the cache, but since we're not running anything beyond the daemons and finder, we have about 2.2 Gb wasted by the cache and you can summarily execute it with purge.

 

Next time you run a program it will be loaded into memory as normal and you will only have the minimum necesarry caching of program routines into the file cache

 

Users are always supposed to be aware of their memory resources, how much a large program typically needs and in what conditions to best load it.

Yes I saw your explanation.

I just disagree with the conclusion.

Thanks to both who responded so quickly.

I did not know that each thread has its own "email" button and threads are managed separately.

On the point of 4GB of RAM being too little.

I agree with one poster that it is all about $.

RAM is fairly expensive, and it seems like 4GB has been the standard for a very long time. I would guess that 4GB of RAM has been the standard for longer than any other amount at its time. So my arguement would go something like this - if I can save the cost of 4GB of RAM on every machine and make it work - why not? In comes, Compression of RAM. When really, there should just be more of it.

I would guess that a similar thing could easily happen with HDD vs SDD on application load times. If programs or applications get so large and require fast read times to open in a timely manner that HDD can't do it reasonably fast (on the first go without caching), then we'll all be complaining about it and reluctant to dish out the $ for a new SDD or at least SSHD.

Anyway, thanks again for the help with the stop email link.

You're welcome.

Davestformore wrote:

 

On the point of 4GB of RAM being too little.

 

I agree with one poster that it is all about $.

 

RAM is fairly expensive, and it seems like 4GB has been the standard for a very long time. I would guess that 4GB of RAM has been the standard for longer than any other amount at its time. So my arguement would go something like this - if I can save the cost of 4GB of RAM on every machine and make it work - why not? In comes, Compression of RAM. When really, there should just be more of it.

 

I would guess that a similar thing could easily happen with HDD vs SDD on application load times. If programs or applications get so large and require fast read times to open in a timely manner that HDD can't do it reasonably fast (on the first go without caching), then we'll all be complaining about it and reluctant to dish out the $ for a new SDD or at least SSHD.

I'm not sure I agree with RAM being expensive nowadays.

4GB of RAM has been the minimum on Apple machines, it doesn't mean it's the best for all users, just the minimum Apple can install & still make sales.

Skimping on RAM is fine if you understand the tradeoff with running a machine at it's full potential. It's always been important to upgrade beyond stock memory levels if you planned to use newer OS's, just use some of the cash that you saved by getting this OS for free (this OS used to cost about as much as 2GB-4GB of RAM).

HFS+ has been compressing files for a number of OS releases, so I don't really know if you have had issues with that feature? Apple did it invisibly in the background.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6/3/

As others have repeatedly said if your Mac is not performing correctly consider troubleshooting or a clean install, it's possible 10.9 is a lame duck, but it's not the behaviour we see, so we assume it's something different at your end.

I am dealing with the same problem.  I just doubled my memory and it was immediately eaten up again.  The two culprits seem to be SafariDAVClient and Kernel task.

Help!

readingsully wrote:

 

I am dealing with the same problem.  I just doubled my memory and it was immediately eaten up again.

Which is as it should be. Mavericks memory management attempts to fill all available RAM in order to avoid having to re-fetch code from the hard drive and will find room when it needs more RAM by first using compression, then purging file cache, then system cache and only resort to paging out to virtual memory when all else fails.

I don't know what's up with SafariDAVClient. Safari has been open for several days now and I don't see that specific process nor do I recall ever having seen it running. I see that it's in

/System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/BookmarkDAV.framework/Versions/A/Helpers/Safar iDAVClient

so it would appear to have something to do with your Bookmarks.

You know what's stupid about this? All the crashes that keep happening on a three month old iMac.... I never had this issue with a 1 year old Mountain Lion, where it was running 4GB. Currently, I'm running 8GB and still using the same amount of programs (adobe PS, Coda, FireFox, Chrome & Terminal) and yet, it's running up to 8GB Memory Used, 10GB Virtual Memory and I'm starting to dip into the swap used.... Then I get frozen at least twice a week where I have to hard power my iMac.

My question is, if I were to turn off the compression, will it even do any changes? This has been the worst iMac I have purchased and I've been using iMacs for quite a number of years.

Specs:

Processor  2.7 GHz Intel Core i5

Memory  8 GB 1600 MHz DDR3

Graphics  Intel Iris Pro 1024 MB

Software  OS X 10.9.2 (13C64)

Iam sorry you are having the same problem as me.  My computer is 2009.  I just added up to 8 G of memory and it's ate it up in 10 minutes.  I have been on these boards until I am blue in the face.  Mavericks has to be the problem.  My question is when does Apple step up to the plate and fix this fiasco.  I have to force quit my computer 5 times a day when I work with my photos and all I am doing is deleting multiples because of the awful faces program.  That should be made to be optional use as well.  I was looking at new computers but they are all Mavericks.  I am not spending another fortune.  If I have to download all my photos to thumb drives and then purchase a PC I will.  There is no excuse for this kind of problem on Apple products and no one is developing a fix.  Shame on you Apple.

How do you turn off the compression to begin with.  I am at the point of trying anything.

http://superuser.com/questions/668114/disable-compressed-memory-in-mac-os-10-9-m avericks

When a product is beta-tested correctly, and bugw worked out prior to release, a lot of the problems seen on the apple boards has been for a while the way apple tests. They halfass put together some 'product' release it with great fanfare, then wait for us to fix it so they might "Relaunch" with great attention.

Well it does not say much for apple service and I for one am losing confidence in apple products and the ability of apple to fix this problem of leaking memory.  I have never been so frustrated in my entire life.  There must be a fix to this problem.  The sad thing is, it is happening in brand new computers as well.  That is not right.  I don't mind spending big money if the product works,but this is a joke.

Are you guys employed by Apple or are you just apple experts helping the common man?

Either way, I appreciate all of your help but nothing has worked.

That's how I feel regardless of what our friend MadMacs0 says. When I bought my MacMini months ago it came with Mavericks preinstalled and right out of the box the computer was so sluggish and slow. I had to purchased more ram so the machine could behave just like a normal computer.

I also purchased Mountain Lion for $19 I believe and installed it on other Mac.

Apple is doing what lots of technology companies do:  they "deny" what many users claim and experience. If you have a chance go back to Mountain Lion.

My observasions regarging this problem.

I have 16GB ram i7 3.5Ghz, 256GB SSD boot drive and a fusion data drive.

I do alot of big file copies, and lots of smaller file copies, i.e. a massive photo library and lots of DVDs that I regulary rip. And lost of music files as well, e.g. CDs and my own recordings.

This causes the file cache to grow in size.

What I see is the following.

After alot of file copies (they have completed at this pont)

a) the com.apple.IconService goes a bit mad and consumes about 300mb of memory.

b) Spotlight indexer also goes a bit mad.

c) the File Cache in creases so that all of the available memory is used.

At this point Mavericks obviously flushes some of the file cache to disk (swap), alas what it does seem to do is max out the IO channel. So if you happen to be listening to a track or watching a video, it freezes whilst the disk goes through a massive write process (disk light goes bright red for upto 15 seconds).

Now the more Ram you have the more it seems to flush in one go.

Also if you happen to have an SSD (which will max out a SATA 3 channel) all of the available bandwidth will be used, causing everything else to slow down.

I've yet to try this (it will take a long time), if the swap disk were a regular spinning disk, the IO channel will not be maxed out, leaving enough bandwidth available for other apps if they are running off a different disk.

Being unix, there must be a way of relocating the swap file elsewhere so see if this fixes the problem (ok is will cause more of a problem when RAM is really exhausted).

I recon the fix will be to be less aggressive with the memory purge to disk.

Unfortunatly I tried monitoring with fs_usage, but that hangs during the massive disk usage (as does activity monitor) so does not acutally register what is causing the IO. So the above is just my eduacated guess.

I do not see the same behaviour on my wifes imac with only 4GB memory and a slow spinning disk. Her machine runs slower on average but does not experience the massive slow downs my mac experiences.

Note I also run boot camp with windows 7 and get now slow downs at all.