Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #82209 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-07 08:45 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-10-11 19:16 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 103 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-07 08:45 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-07 17:59 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-07 19:01 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-08 00:25 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-07 18:26 -0700
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-10 09:42 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-10 20:26 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-11 02:13 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 10:17 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-10-11 14:44 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 14:54 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-11 19:51 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 16:11 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-11 20:21 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 16:23 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-11 21:01 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 17:13 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-11 21:47 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 19:13 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-10-11 20:44 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 03:23 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-10-12 10:02 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 15:40 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 12:28 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 09:05 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 15:51 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 12:45 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-10-12 15:07 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 15:39 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-10-12 14:34 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-12 02:38 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 09:10 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 15:51 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 12:49 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-12 16:20 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 12:56 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 22:49 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-13 19:20 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-14 08:01 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-14 19:02 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 03:20 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 09:24 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-12 14:40 +0100
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 15:37 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 12:23 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 22:39 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-10-12 20:15 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-13 00:21 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-13 20:26 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-14 08:04 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-14 19:06 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-13 19:10 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-14 07:48 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-14 18:54 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-14 23:15 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-14 20:55 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-10-12 14:21 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-10-11 18:58 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 19:22 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 03:24 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 09:27 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 15:45 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 12:36 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-10-12 16:43 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 12:58 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 22:45 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-13 19:19 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-14 07:59 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-14 19:01 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-10-15 00:17 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-15 13:33 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-10-12 19:26 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-13 20:17 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-10-14 17:57 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-14 18:13 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-14 19:09 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 03:18 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 09:17 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 15:25 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 12:10 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-11 21:11 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-10-11 18:55 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 19:21 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-10-12 14:23 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-11 21:10 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 17:34 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) John Somerset <somerset@nospam.com> - 2015-10-11 18:17 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 19:15 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) John Somerset <somerset@nospam.com> - 2015-10-11 19:58 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 08:58 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 03:16 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 09:15 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-12 14:17 +0100
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 15:20 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 12:05 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 03:15 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 09:13 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 15:18 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-12 12:04 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-12 22:33 +0000
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-13 18:59 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) John Somerset <somerset@nospam.com> - 2015-10-11 18:43 -0400
Re: Improved memory management? (10.11) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-10-11 19:16 -0400
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 09:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <VKudnftXRPPVKIbLnZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83166 |
On 2015-10-11 23:24, Lewis wrote: > In message <-dydnRiSCti2cofLnZ2dnUU7-S2dnZ2d@giganews.com> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2015-10-11 18:58, JF Mezei wrote: >>> On 2015-10-11 17:13, Alan Browne wrote: >>> >>>> There's an observable improvement: no swaps occur. >>>> >>> >>> Unless you know why swaps occured before, you can't really know about >>> the imporvements. Your appls may simply be running with less memory and >>> thus perform not as well as if they were allowed to take more memory >>> (and shove other processes to disk while doing that memory intensive task) > > >> The main indication of an issue is the system slowing down. Lots of >> memory leaves lots of free memory. All apps and OS are happy. > > Free RAM is wasted RAM. Not if it guarantees that swapping will be reduced or not occur at all. It's a cheap investment (these days) in making a computer run swiftly because you avoid swaps.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 15:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1nlg0.hr4.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #83226 |
In message <VKudnftXRPPVKIbLnZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2015-10-11 23:24, Lewis wrote: >> In message <-dydnRiSCti2cofLnZ2dnUU7-S2dnZ2d@giganews.com> >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2015-10-11 18:58, JF Mezei wrote: >>>> On 2015-10-11 17:13, Alan Browne wrote: >>>> >>>>> There's an observable improvement: no swaps occur. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Unless you know why swaps occured before, you can't really know about >>>> the imporvements. Your appls may simply be running with less memory and >>>> thus perform not as well as if they were allowed to take more memory >>>> (and shove other processes to disk while doing that memory intensive task) >> >> >>> The main indication of an issue is the system slowing down. Lots of >>> memory leaves lots of free memory. All apps and OS are happy. >> >> Free RAM is wasted RAM. > Not if it guarantees that swapping will be reduced or not occur at all. Still wrong. > It's a cheap investment (these days) in making a computer run swiftly > because you avoid swaps. Still wrong. There will *ALWAYS* be swap. Just checked my iMac with 24GB of RAM. According to memory_pressure: System-wide memory free percentage: 89% 4GB of Swap. 2.4GB of compressed memory. Memory pressure graph is nearly invisible the green line is so thin. -- Mister Teatime had a truly brilliant mind, but it was brilliant like a fractured mirror, all marvelous facets and rainbows but, ultimately, also something that was broken. --Hogfather
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 12:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p4OdnSzDf94dfIbLnZ2dnUU7-dWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83245 |
On 2015-10-12 11:45, Lewis wrote: > In message <VKudnftXRPPVKIbLnZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan > Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2015-10-11 23:24, Lewis wrote: >>> In message <-dydnRiSCti2cofLnZ2dnUU7-S2dnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan >>> Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>> On 2015-10-11 18:58, JF Mezei wrote: >>>>> On 2015-10-11 17:13, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There's an observable improvement: no swaps occur. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unless you know why swaps occured before, you can't really >>>>> know about the imporvements. Your appls may simply be running >>>>> with less memory and thus perform not as well as if they were >>>>> allowed to take more memory (and shove other processes to >>>>> disk while doing that memory intensive task) >>> >>> >>>> The main indication of an issue is the system slowing down. >>>> Lots of memory leaves lots of free memory. All apps and OS are >>>> happy. >>> >>> Free RAM is wasted RAM. > >> Not if it guarantees that swapping will be reduced or not occur at >> all. > > Still wrong. How can it be wrong. I've operated this Mac with nice high workloads (as needed) over periods of weeks with swap and compression disabled with no discernible effect. >> It's a cheap investment (these days) in making a computer run >> swiftly because you avoid swaps. > > Still wrong. Not at all. History should be your guide. The ratio of loaded OS to RAM has fallen considerably over the decades, as has the ratio of loaded app size and memory need to installed RAM. This doesn't match all uses cases, of course, but that number will just grow as well. > There will *ALWAYS* be swap. > > Just checked my iMac with 24GB of RAM. According to memory_pressure: > > System-wide memory free percentage: 89% > > 4GB of Swap. 2.4GB of compressed memory. Memory pressure graph is > nearly invisible the green line is so thin. Coincidentally, mine (24 GB) is presently 89% free too. But mem compression is visible (about 1/6th of the vertical scale and swap at 350 MB; compressed at 400 MB. With 89% "free" of 24 GB, swap isn't really needed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 16:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d826a5F2icpU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #83274 |
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2015-10-12 11:45, Lewis wrote: >> In message <VKudnftXRPPVKIbLnZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan >> Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2015-10-11 23:24, Lewis wrote: >>>> In message <-dydnRiSCti2cofLnZ2dnUU7-S2dnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan >>>> Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> On 2015-10-11 18:58, JF Mezei wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-10-11 17:13, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> There's an observable improvement: no swaps occur. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Unless you know why swaps occured before, you can't really >>>>>> know about the imporvements. Your appls may simply be running >>>>>> with less memory and thus perform not as well as if they were >>>>>> allowed to take more memory (and shove other processes to >>>>>> disk while doing that memory intensive task) >>>> >>>> >>>>> The main indication of an issue is the system slowing down. >>>>> Lots of memory leaves lots of free memory. All apps and OS are >>>>> happy. >>>> >>>> Free RAM is wasted RAM. >> >>> Not if it guarantees that swapping will be reduced or not occur at >>> all. >> >> Still wrong. > > How can it be wrong. I've operated this Mac with nice high workloads > (as needed) over periods of weeks with swap and compression disabled > with no discernible effect. > >>> It's a cheap investment (these days) in making a computer run >>> swiftly because you avoid swaps. >> >> Still wrong. > > Not at all. History should be your guide. The ratio of loaded OS to > RAM has fallen considerably over the decades, as has the ratio of loaded > app size and memory need to installed RAM. This doesn't match all uses > cases, of course, but that number will just grow as well. > > > >> There will *ALWAYS* be swap. >> >> Just checked my iMac with 24GB of RAM. According to memory_pressure: >> >> System-wide memory free percentage: 89% >> >> 4GB of Swap. 2.4GB of compressed memory. Memory pressure graph is >> nearly invisible the green line is so thin. > > Coincidentally, mine (24 GB) is presently 89% free too. But mem > compression is visible (about 1/6th of the vertical scale and swap at > 350 MB; compressed at 400 MB. > > With 89% "free" of 24 GB, swap isn't really needed. *YAWN* You guys are still here? -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 12:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ZKWdnUB-f_Q0e4bLnZ2dnUU7-RednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83280 |
On 2015-10-12 12:43, Jolly Roger wrote: > You guys are still here? Ignorance is bliss - just ignore us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 22:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1oe4c.lvf.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #83274 |
In message <p4OdnSzDf94dfIbLnZ2dnUU7-dWdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2015-10-12 11:45, Lewis wrote: >> In message <VKudnftXRPPVKIbLnZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan >> Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2015-10-11 23:24, Lewis wrote: >>>> In message <-dydnRiSCti2cofLnZ2dnUU7-S2dnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan >>>> Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> On 2015-10-11 18:58, JF Mezei wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-10-11 17:13, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> There's an observable improvement: no swaps occur. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Unless you know why swaps occured before, you can't really >>>>>> know about the imporvements. Your appls may simply be running >>>>>> with less memory and thus perform not as well as if they were >>>>>> allowed to take more memory (and shove other processes to >>>>>> disk while doing that memory intensive task) >>>> >>>> >>>>> The main indication of an issue is the system slowing down. >>>>> Lots of memory leaves lots of free memory. All apps and OS are >>>>> happy. >>>> >>>> Free RAM is wasted RAM. >> >>> Not if it guarantees that swapping will be reduced or not occur at >>> all. >> >> Still wrong. > How can it be wrong. Because you keep claiming that the existence of swap is a *negative*, and that is wrong. You did not start off saying "I don't need it" you started off saying this slows my system down and so I disabled it". That is *wrong*. You keep referring to the existence of swap as being an indication that your computer is using the hard drive *instead* of available RAM. This is *wrong*. > I've operated this Mac with nice high workloads (as needed) over > periods of weeks with swap and compression disabled with no > discernible effect. Which is entirely irrelevant to your erroneous claims that 1) doing this improves performance and 2) you had to do this to prevent the system from using swap. > With 89% "free" of 24 GB, swap isn't really needed. Again, not the issue at all. You have repeatedly claimed that any swap is bad and that the OS is wrong to create swap files when memory is available. You claim that preventing the compute from using swap improves performance "measurably". You claim that the existence of swap files means the system is using your disk instead of using available RAM. All of these assertions you have made repeatedly are *wrong*. -- I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 19:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <z-KdnRsaPdgODIDLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83350 |
On 2015-10-12 18:45, Lewis wrote: > In message <p4OdnSzDf94dfIbLnZ2dnUU7-dWdnZ2d@giganews.com> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2015-10-12 11:45, Lewis wrote: >>> In message <VKudnftXRPPVKIbLnZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan >>> Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>> On 2015-10-11 23:24, Lewis wrote: >>>>> In message <-dydnRiSCti2cofLnZ2dnUU7-S2dnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan >>>>> Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-10-11 18:58, JF Mezei wrote: >>>>>>> On 2015-10-11 17:13, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There's an observable improvement: no swaps occur. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unless you know why swaps occured before, you can't really >>>>>>> know about the imporvements. Your appls may simply be running >>>>>>> with less memory and thus perform not as well as if they were >>>>>>> allowed to take more memory (and shove other processes to >>>>>>> disk while doing that memory intensive task) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The main indication of an issue is the system slowing down. >>>>>> Lots of memory leaves lots of free memory. All apps and OS are >>>>>> happy. >>>>> >>>>> Free RAM is wasted RAM. >>> >>>> Not if it guarantees that swapping will be reduced or not occur at >>>> all. >>> >>> Still wrong. > >> How can it be wrong. > > Because you keep claiming that the existence of swap is a *negative*, > and that is wrong. You did not start off saying "I don't need it" you > started off saying this slows my system down and so I disabled it". That > is *wrong*. It may not be as bad as I originally stated in terms of performance (yet I still remember OS X with 2 GB of memory and then it was measurably slowing the system ... no choice ... needed it due to lack of physical RAM v. memory demand). Today, on my system, it is simply not needed. That is the difference. > You keep referring to the existence of swap as being an indication that > your computer is using the hard drive *instead* of available RAM. This > is *wrong*. > >> I've operated this Mac with nice high workloads (as needed) over >> periods of weeks with swap and compression disabled with no >> discernible effect. > > Which is entirely irrelevant to your erroneous claims that 1) doing this > improves performance and 2) you had to do this to prevent the system from > using swap. > >> With 89% "free" of 24 GB, swap isn't really needed. > > Again, not the issue at all. Sure it is. I've worked on systems with no swap at all. Either everything worked with what was available or it didn't. If you couldn't load more code or data, that was it. Offload something else first. Swap is just the means to avoid that. An improvement needed then and needed less and less now in the right circumstances. Mine - and many people's. > > You have repeatedly claimed that any swap is bad and that the OS is > wrong to create swap files when memory is available. You claim that > preventing the compute from using swap improves performance > "measurably". You claim that the existence of swap files means the > system is using your disk instead of using available RAM. > > All of these assertions you have made repeatedly are *wrong*. Hang on there cowboy. I've been very careful to point out that no swap is fine when there is ample extra memory and for my particular use of the machine. Anyone who wants to do this has to understand that. I never said "any swap is bad" in isolation. It's useless if there is no need for it. I've shown this to work fine and if you plow around the web you'll find others who have played with it too. Eyes wide open of course. The "measure" is the simple fact that so many hundred MB of swap were written when there were many GB of RAM available. No real need for swap. Swap is a creature of the 50's that hung around in increasing sophistication over the decades as memory allocation was always large than physical RAM. The tipping point has been reached. There is less and less need for swap and the trend shows no sign of reversing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 07:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1s2vd.4v8.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #83404 |
In message <z-KdnRsaPdgODIDLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2015-10-12 18:45, Lewis wrote: >> In message <p4OdnSzDf94dfIbLnZ2dnUU7-dWdnZ2d@giganews.com> >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2015-10-12 11:45, Lewis wrote: >>>> In message <VKudnftXRPPVKIbLnZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan >>>> Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> On 2015-10-11 23:24, Lewis wrote: >>>>>> In message <-dydnRiSCti2cofLnZ2dnUU7-S2dnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan >>>>>> Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2015-10-11 18:58, JF Mezei wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2015-10-11 17:13, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There's an observable improvement: no swaps occur. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unless you know why swaps occured before, you can't really >>>>>>>> know about the imporvements. Your appls may simply be running >>>>>>>> with less memory and thus perform not as well as if they were >>>>>>>> allowed to take more memory (and shove other processes to >>>>>>>> disk while doing that memory intensive task) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The main indication of an issue is the system slowing down. >>>>>>> Lots of memory leaves lots of free memory. All apps and OS are >>>>>>> happy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Free RAM is wasted RAM. >>>> >>>>> Not if it guarantees that swapping will be reduced or not occur at >>>>> all. >>>> >>>> Still wrong. >> >>> How can it be wrong. >> >> Because you keep claiming that the existence of swap is a *negative*, >> and that is wrong. You did not start off saying "I don't need it" you >> started off saying this slows my system down and so I disabled it". That >> is *wrong*. > It may not be as bad as I originally stated in terms of performance As in what you originally stated was 100% totally incontrovertibly in every possible way by any possible measure wrong? Yes. Good you finally admit it. >(yet I still remember OS X with 2 GB of memory and then it was >measurably slowing the system ... no choice ... needed it due to lack >of physical RAM v. memory demand). Not talking about the past here. Stop goal shifting. If you want to complain about VM performance in 10.5 or 10.6 you go right ahead. But your misinformation and flat-out lies about VM in 10.10 and 10.11 will not stand. > Today, on my system, it is simply not needed. Don't care about that, only care about your lies about it degrading your system and the "measurable improvement" from disabling swap. This is not true. Period. You want to turn off swap, you go right ahead. It's your computer. You tell people that turning it off is a good idea? No. Telling people in "measurably improves" performance? No. These are lies and misinformation that indicate you've no clue what you are talking about. >>> With 89% "free" of 24 GB, swap isn't really needed. >> >> Again, not the issue at all. > Sure it is. It may be YOUR issue. It is not the issue that I have been talking about. I don't give a fuck if you need or don't need swap on YOUR computer. I only care about your continuous stream of bullshit on the issue. >> You have repeatedly claimed that any swap is bad and that the OS is >> wrong to create swap files when memory is available. You claim that >> preventing the compute from using swap improves performance >> "measurably". You claim that the existence of swap files means the >> system is using your disk instead of using available RAM. >> >> All of these assertions you have made repeatedly are *wrong*. > Hang on there cowboy. I've been very careful to point out that no swap > is fine when there is ample extra memory and for my particular use of > the machine. Anyone who wants to do this has to understand that. You have repeatedly said that disabling swap led to a "measurable improvement" in your system performance. This is a lie. > Swap is a creature of the 50's that hung around in increasing > sophistication over the decades as memory allocation was always large > than physical RAM. The tipping point has been reached. There is less > and less need for swap and the trend shows no sign of reversing. Go ahead, ramp up your memory usage on a machine you've disabled swap on until you run out of memory and see what happens. I dare ya. I double-dare ya. Hint: don't do it on a system with critical anything on it, the results are not pretty. The last unix-based system I saw that ran out of RAM with no swap required a bare-metal reinstall as the system dumped pagefiles all over the hard drive, destroying the catalog and rendering the system useless in a matter of seconds. Granted, that was quite a while ago and it happened because the dedicated drive used for swap had died and the machine didn't have enough free memory to rewrite the catalog file properly. Still, bad things. -- Dinner will be ready when the smoke alarm goes off.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 19:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ld-dnWQhsZ0mQ4PLnZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83423 |
On 2015-10-14 03:59, Lewis wrote: > In message <z-KdnRsaPdgODIDLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2015-10-12 18:45, Lewis wrote: >>> In message <p4OdnSzDf94dfIbLnZ2dnUU7-dWdnZ2d@giganews.com> >>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>> On 2015-10-12 11:45, Lewis wrote: >>>>> In message <VKudnftXRPPVKIbLnZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan >>>>> Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-10-11 23:24, Lewis wrote: >>>>>>> In message <-dydnRiSCti2cofLnZ2dnUU7-S2dnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan >>>>>>> Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2015-10-11 18:58, JF Mezei wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2015-10-11 17:13, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There's an observable improvement: no swaps occur. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Unless you know why swaps occured before, you can't really >>>>>>>>> know about the imporvements. Your appls may simply be running >>>>>>>>> with less memory and thus perform not as well as if they were >>>>>>>>> allowed to take more memory (and shove other processes to >>>>>>>>> disk while doing that memory intensive task) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The main indication of an issue is the system slowing down. >>>>>>>> Lots of memory leaves lots of free memory. All apps and OS are >>>>>>>> happy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Free RAM is wasted RAM. >>>>> >>>>>> Not if it guarantees that swapping will be reduced or not occur at >>>>>> all. >>>>> >>>>> Still wrong. >>> >>>> How can it be wrong. >>> >>> Because you keep claiming that the existence of swap is a *negative*, >>> and that is wrong. You did not start off saying "I don't need it" you >>> started off saying this slows my system down and so I disabled it". That >>> is *wrong*. > >> It may not be as bad as I originally stated in terms of performance > > As in what you originally stated was 100% totally incontrovertibly in > every possible way by any possible measure wrong? > > Yes. Good you finally admit it. > >> (yet I still remember OS X with 2 GB of memory and then it was >> measurably slowing the system ... no choice ... needed it due to lack >> of physical RAM v. memory demand). > > Not talking about the past here. Stop goal shifting. If you want to > complain about VM performance in 10.5 or 10.6 you go right ahead. But > your misinformation and flat-out lies about VM in 10.10 and 10.11 will > not stand. > >> Today, on my system, it is simply not needed. > > Don't care about that, only care about your lies about it degrading your > system and the "measurable improvement" from disabling swap. This is > not true. Period. > > You want to turn off swap, you go right ahead. It's your computer. > > You tell people that turning it off is a good idea? No. Telling people > in "measurably improves" performance? No. These are lies and > misinformation that indicate you've no clue what you are talking about. > >>>> With 89% "free" of 24 GB, swap isn't really needed. >>> >>> Again, not the issue at all. > >> Sure it is. > > It may be YOUR issue. It is not the issue that I have been talking > about. I don't give a fuck if you need or don't need swap on YOUR > computer. I only care about your continuous stream of bullshit on the > issue. > >>> You have repeatedly claimed that any swap is bad and that the OS is >>> wrong to create swap files when memory is available. You claim that >>> preventing the compute from using swap improves performance >>> "measurably". You claim that the existence of swap files means the >>> system is using your disk instead of using available RAM. >>> >>> All of these assertions you have made repeatedly are *wrong*. > >> Hang on there cowboy. I've been very careful to point out that no swap >> is fine when there is ample extra memory and for my particular use of >> the machine. Anyone who wants to do this has to understand that. > > You have repeatedly said that disabling swap led to a "measurable > improvement" in your system performance. > > This is a lie. The measurement is the fact that it happened. 100's of MB written when nothing needed to be written. That is a plain fact. Did it cause _noticeable_ delays. I can't say. Did it cause measurable slowdowns, I can't say if I didn't notice them. (See my reply to Barry re my 2007 iMac and this iMac with different amounts of RAM). > >> Swap is a creature of the 50's that hung around in increasing >> sophistication over the decades as memory allocation was always large >> than physical RAM. The tipping point has been reached. There is less >> and less need for swap and the trend shows no sign of reversing. > > Go ahead, ramp up your memory usage on a machine you've disabled swap on > until you run out of memory and see what happens. I dare ya. I > double-dare ya. > > Hint: don't do it on a system with critical anything on it, the results > are not pretty. The last unix-based system I saw that ran out of RAM > with no swap required a bare-metal reinstall as the system dumped > pagefiles all over the hard drive, destroying the catalog and rendering > the system useless in a matter of seconds. Sounds like BS to me. If swap is disabled then the system should not dump pagefiles to disk.[Oh - but wait until below...]. It should hang, or crash, or panic. Some un posted files may be lost. > > Granted, that was quite a while ago and it happened because the > dedicated drive used for swap had died and the machine didn't have > enough free memory to rewrite the catalog file properly. > > Still, bad things. It looks like you really don't understand swapping. What you describe above was on a system with swap _enabled_ but that disk died - that could cause all manner of something (not sure what). I'm talking about swap _disabled_. And came nowhere close to full RAM. Of course I've made it clear from the start that this is not appropriate for machines w/o lots of RAM.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 00:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <561f28cd$0$9308$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #83460 |
On 2015-10-14 19:01, Alan Browne wrote: > The measurement is the fact that it happened. 100's of MB written when > nothing needed to be written. You actually do not know that. memory heavy app may have run in background while you were away. And you don't know to whom those written pages belong. And they remain there until those processes need access to those pages. Remember that we are not talking about swapping here. we are talking about paging. Swapping is a last resort thing. By disabling paging and swapping you may in fact be slowing down many background jobs that run while you are away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 13:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <dqudnVvq_9jofoLLnZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83493 |
On 2015-10-15 00:17, JF Mezei wrote: > On 2015-10-14 19:01, Alan Browne wrote: > >> The measurement is the fact that it happened. 100's of MB written when >> nothing needed to be written. > > You actually do not know that. memory heavy app may have run in > background while you were away. And you don't know to whom those written > pages belong. And they remain there until those processes need access to > those pages. Do you really think "while I'm away" that some process will kick off and demand 10 - 15 GB of RAM? Really? > > Remember that we are not talking about swapping here. we are talking > about paging. Swapping is a last resort thing. > > By disabling paging and swapping you may in fact be slowing down many > background jobs that run while you are away. Horsecrap.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 19:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <561c419c$0$840$b1db1813$e2fc9064@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #83274 |
On 2015-10-12 12:36, Alan Browne wrote: > How can it be wrong. I've operated this Mac with nice high workloads > (as needed) over periods of weeks with swap and compression disabled > with no discernible effect. Adobe plays nice and asks how much memory is available. It doesn't try to allocate more. In exchange, it uses a scratch disk to store stuff it can't all keep in memory. So turning off paging to disk may in fact cause certain apps to use more disk write/reads.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 20:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <hsCdnW93_-SaAoDLnZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83352 |
On 2015-10-12 19:26, JF Mezei wrote: > On 2015-10-12 12:36, Alan Browne wrote: > >> How can it be wrong. I've operated this Mac with nice high workloads >> (as needed) over periods of weeks with swap and compression disabled >> with no discernible effect. > > > Adobe plays nice and asks how much memory is available. It doesn't try > to allocate more. In exchange, it uses a scratch disk to store stuff it > can't all keep in memory. > > So turning off paging to disk may in fact cause certain apps to use more > disk write/reads. When I used PS CS5 with a few large (450 MB scans) loaded, there's still many GB of available space. I can fire up and fill a 10 GB Ram Disk and it still will have lots of room for more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 17:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <561ecfdd$0$62714$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #83409 |
On 2015-10-13 20:17, Alan Browne wrote: > When I used PS CS5 with a few large (450 MB scans) loaded, there's still > many GB of available space. I can fire up and fill a 10 GB Ram Disk and > it still will have lots of room for more. Photoshop -> Preferences -> Performance. Lower memory footprint inreases scratch disk usage. So you are in fact depriving Photoshop of available RAM and forcing it to use its own private "page files" So if you limit your apps' memory footprint, of course you'll always end up with some free memory in your 24GB system. But you are slowing down your apps because the apps themselves will use their own scratch files and do their own writes which are less efficient than if you let the VM system do it. The VM system operates are much lower level with far more efficiency and less overhead than an app reading/writing to a file.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 18:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <141020151813332310%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #83457 |
In article <561ecfdd$0$62714$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > Photoshop -> Preferences -> Performance. > > Lower memory footprint inreases scratch disk usage. So you are in fact > depriving Photoshop of available RAM and forcing it to use its own > private "page files" > > So if you limit your apps' memory footprint, of course you'll always end > up with some free memory in your 24GB system. But you are slowing down > your apps because the apps themselves will use their own scratch files > and do their own writes which are less efficient than if you let the VM > system do it. the tradeoff is giving as much memory to photoshop as it needs for the images you want to work with without taking away from other apps you might want to use alongside photoshop. > The VM system operates are much lower level with far more efficiency and > less overhead than an app reading/writing to a file. except when it isn't. in photoshop's case, its own vm system is much faster than anything the operating system can provide because it knows exactly what parts of the image will be accessed next, which can even vary depending on the specific action done. the operating system does not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 19:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <IY6dnSlp1Oo6fYPLnZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83457 |
On 2015-10-14 17:57, JF Mezei wrote: > On 2015-10-13 20:17, Alan Browne wrote: > >> When I used PS CS5 with a few large (450 MB scans) loaded, there's still >> many GB of available space. I can fire up and fill a 10 GB Ram Disk and >> it still will have lots of room for more. > > > Photoshop -> Preferences -> Performance. > > Lower memory footprint inreases scratch disk usage. So you are in fact > depriving Photoshop of available RAM and forcing it to use its own > private "page files" > > So if you limit your apps' memory footprint, of course you'll always end > up with some free memory in your 24GB system. But you are slowing down > your apps because the apps themselves will use their own scratch files > and do their own writes which are less efficient than if you let the VM > system do it. I have so much RAM above load that turning off swap does not cause PS to use its scratch files. Scratch files on PS are a vestige of the 90's that have been retained because some operate their computers with minimal RAM. Sufficiently over RAM'd machines like mine don't need swap and certainly don't need Adobe's scratch disk option.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 03:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1m9ol.f9b.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #83107 |
In message <H5udncxau4V_TYfLnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2015-10-11 17:01, Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2015-10-11, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2015-10-11 16:21, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>> On 2015-10-11, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> On 2015-10-11 15:51, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-10-11, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. As I've mentioned in the past I've operated OS X with both swap and >>>>>>> compression disabled to no ill effect. >>>>>> >>>>>> What effects were there? >>>>> >>>>> The system worked fine, which is an acceptable effect. >>>> >>>> Was the system working fine before you disabled swap and compression? >>> >>> Yep. >> >> I was under the impression there was a measurable improvement. > There's an observable improvement: no swaps occur. That is not an observable improvement. -- There is a road, no simple highway, between the dawn and the dark of night
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 09:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oOKdnQcqCctiL4bLnZ2dnUU7-audnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83163 |
On 2015-10-11 23:18, Lewis wrote: > In message <H5udncxau4V_TYfLnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@giganews.com> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2015-10-11 17:01, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> On 2015-10-11, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>> On 2015-10-11 16:21, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>> On 2015-10-11, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-10-11 15:51, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>>>> On 2015-10-11, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. As I've mentioned in the past I've operated OS X with both swap and >>>>>>>> compression disabled to no ill effect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What effects were there? >>>>>> >>>>>> The system worked fine, which is an acceptable effect. >>>>> >>>>> Was the system working fine before you disabled swap and compression? >>>> >>>> Yep. >>> >>> I was under the impression there was a measurable improvement. > >> There's an observable improvement: no swaps occur. > > That is not an observable improvement. Of course it is. I see in Activity Monitor that swaps occurred for no good reason. Turn off swap and they don't occur. Swaps take time. In another thread you wrote: "Partitions are so last millennium." Well guess what? Memory swaps are also on the road to becoming obsolete for most purposes because RAM is much larger than ever v. the size of the OS and most apps and their memory needs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 15:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1nka9.hr4.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #83223 |
In message <oOKdnQcqCctiL4bLnZ2dnUU7-audnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2015-10-11 23:18, Lewis wrote: >> In message <H5udncxau4V_TYfLnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@giganews.com> >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2015-10-11 17:01, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>> On 2015-10-11, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> On 2015-10-11 16:21, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-10-11, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2015-10-11 15:51, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2015-10-11, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. As I've mentioned in the past I've operated OS X with both swap and >>>>>>>>> compression disabled to no ill effect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What effects were there? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The system worked fine, which is an acceptable effect. >>>>>> >>>>>> Was the system working fine before you disabled swap and compression? >>>>> >>>>> Yep. >>>> >>>> I was under the impression there was a measurable improvement. >> >>> There's an observable improvement: no swaps occur. >> >> That is not an observable improvement. > Of course it is. Not in anyway other than "there's no swap and I erroneously think that's better based n my total lack of knowledge and understanding." > I see in Activity Monitor that swaps occurred for no > good reason. Turn off swap and they don't occur. Swaps take time. Take time from WHAT? > In another thread you wrote: "Partitions are so last millennium." > Well guess what? Memory swaps are also on the road to becoming > obsolete Nope. You simply do not understand how the VM and Swap and compression systems in OS X work. As I said, there will *ALWAYS* be swap. Swap is used preemptively by the OS. Memory that is not currently active will be compressed preemptively as well, regardless if this "needs" to be done. -- but then a lot of nice things turn bad out there
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 12:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0LCdnYcDC_IQRobLnZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83242 |
On 2015-10-12 11:25, Lewis wrote: > In message <oOKdnQcqCctiL4bLnZ2dnUU7-audnZ2d@giganews.com> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2015-10-11 23:18, Lewis wrote: >>> In message <H5udncxau4V_TYfLnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@giganews.com> >>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>> On 2015-10-11 17:01, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>> On 2015-10-11, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-10-11 16:21, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>>>> On 2015-10-11, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2015-10-11 15:51, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2015-10-11, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. As I've mentioned in the past I've operated OS X with both swap and >>>>>>>>>> compression disabled to no ill effect. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What effects were there? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The system worked fine, which is an acceptable effect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Was the system working fine before you disabled swap and compression? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yep. >>>>> >>>>> I was under the impression there was a measurable improvement. >>> >>>> There's an observable improvement: no swaps occur. >>> >>> That is not an observable improvement. > >> Of course it is. > > Not in anyway other than "there's no swap and I erroneously think that's > better based n my total lack of knowledge and understanding." > No - it's there's no swapping because there is no need for swapping on my system. If I were to run a lot more apps that needed a lot more memory concurrently that would change (but then I'd bump up the memory as well probably outpacing the need for more memory at a given time. >> I see in Activity Monitor that swaps occurred for no >> good reason. Turn off swap and they don't occur. Swaps take time. > > Take time from WHAT? From whatever else may be going on. True to say that as I have a quad core HT i7 that the computer has oodles of idle time most of the time, but on the other hand why write to disk when there is no reason to do so? > >> In another thread you wrote: "Partitions are so last millennium." > >> Well guess what? Memory swaps are also on the road to becoming >> obsolete > > Nope. You simply do not understand how the VM and Swap and compression > systems in OS X work. Well enough to know that on a systems with large amounts of RAM, swap and compression are not needed for many users. > As I said, there will *ALWAYS* be swap. Swap is used preemptively by the > OS. Memory that is not currently active will be compressed preemptively > as well, regardless if this "needs" to be done. Hmm. When I turn them off then obviously they are not used at all and there is no ill effect on my computer or operations with the computer not being re-booted for weeks. As memory gets cheaper and larger the need for swap and compression dwindles. Not for all users and operations of course, but certainly for me and certainly for a lot of users.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web