RAM Usage for different Desktops?

Bardwise · 2011-11-12 19:37:43

On my arch GNOME installation, with a standard set of daemons running, just over 100 MB of RAM is used.

What type of RAM usage would I expect from KDE, LXDE etc? Some guy said that his LXDE installation uses just 20MB RAM...

karol · 2011-11-12 19:46:25

20 MB just for LXDE not 20 MB in total. My setup uses 20 MB when I boot into the console and about 40 MB when in X (I use dwm).

Bardwise · 2011-11-12 19:49:18

Oh yeah, sorry, I should have specified. I'm talking about running the 'free -m' command after booting into the desktop.

Still, 40MB is really impressive. How does XFCE measure up?

FYI, my old Ubuntu 10.04 install was around 180 MB, Ubuntu 11.10 about 370 MB (ugh).

KingX · 2011-11-12 19:55:15

I am not sure how accurate my results are. I am in the middle of trying out various DE's so I have KDE4, Gnome3 and XFCE4 installed. Right now in KDE4 my mem usage is around ~800MB.

But I have various gnome services running also (altho they are not taking a lot of mem).

karol · 2011-11-12 20:07:33

There's e.g. https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=118050 but it never took off.

You should post the output of 'free -m' just to be sure you're reading it properly: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/FA … _my_RAM.3F

tavianator · 2011-11-13 00:16:45

X with KDE (Konsole and Chromium open), recently booted:

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:         12011       2987       9024          0          1       1452
-/+ buffers/cache:       1534      10477
Swap:            0          0          0

But keep in mind that memory accounting is actually hard to do, and not completely accurate. This is due to things like copy-on-write pages, shared memory, and overcommitting. I would expect to be using a lot less than 1.5G with the same setup if I had less physical RAM. And after this rig has been on for longer, the cache will start to fill the rest of the RAM.

karol · 2011-11-13 00:31:31

There's not much sense to compare WMs / DEs when you open a web browser:
just after booting into console:

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:           490         44        446          0          2         22
-/+ buffers/cache:         18        471
Swap:          258          0        258

just after starting dwm:

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:           490         90        400          0          3         49
-/+ buffers/cache:         37        453
Swap:          258          0        258

browser opened:

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:           490        449         41          0         14        138
-/+ buffers/cache:        296        194
Swap:          258          0        258

Bardwise · 2011-11-13 01:46:56

Just set up a fresh LXDE Arch install and it's beautiful (not physically...)

Post-boot

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          3281        168       3112          0         14         64
-/+ buffers/cache:         89       3192
Swap:         1027          0       1027

Firefox open

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          3281        278       3003          0         18        131
-/+ buffers/cache:        128       3153
Swap:         1027          0       1027

On arch homepage...

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          3281        323       2957          0         18        136
-/+ buffers/cache:        167       3113
Swap:         1027          0       1027

And on a youtube video.

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          3281        425       2855          0         24        185
-/+ buffers/cache:        214       3066
Swap:         1027          0       1027

MrCode · 2011-11-13 02:21:55

Since this appears to be turning into a general discussion about memory usage (more or less), should it be merged with this thread?

Also, to be more on-topic: what exactly are we talking about when we say "memory usage"? Total (including disk cache, etc.)? Resident (i.e. memory actively used by processes)?

[mrcode@lappy486 ~]$ fm
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          3821       1146¹      2674          0         60        497
-/+ buffers/cache:        588²      3232
Swap:          258          0        258

…¹ or ²?

fsckd · 2011-11-13 03:32:19

karol's computer was configured by Bruce Schneier.

MrCode wrote:

Since this appears to be turning into a general discussion about memory usage (more or less), should it be merged with this thread?

What irks me about this thread is it's hard to gauge RAM usage just by naming a DE/WM. E.g., conkly-lua eats RAM like no tomorrow, it just passed 85 MiB on my system.

WorMzy · 2011-11-13 13:05:01

I still don't understand how people get their RAM usage so low.

I use about 70MB in console, and 350MB in X+openbox.

Mr_ED-horsey · 2011-11-13 16:43:29

Mate Desktop - No desktop effects... Was thinking on installing Compiz in the next few days. If I do I'll repost my RAM usage with Compiz enabled.
Also, it's a pretty minimal install since most of the mate-extras have been taken down, I'm assuming they're being rewritten to work without tcp_wrappers(?).

Fresh boot:

[neruson@megatron ~]$ free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          3958        388       3569          0          9        119
-/+ buffers/cache:        260       3697
Swap:         3999          0       3999
[neruson@megatron ~]$

With Chromium open on Arch forums with a couple of other tabs open:

[neruson@megatron ~]$ free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          3958        624       3333          0         10        195
-/+ buffers/cache:        418       3539
Swap:         3999          0       3999
[neruson@megatron ~]$

If I had to do my install over again I'd give it less SWAP space.... Ah well... At the time I thought it was more important than it actually was

Last edited by Mr_ED-horsey (2011-11-13 17:15:57)

Leonid.I · 2011-11-13 16:53:22

WorMzy wrote:

I still don't understand how people get their RAM usage so low.
I use about 70MB in console, and 350MB in X+openbox.

Well, this statistics is pointless, because noone has mentioned the architecture and actual setups.

For instance, it is quite feasible to get ~20Mb in console for i686 (and ~80MB in gnome2), but I could never go below 120MB in text mode on a x86_64. Then other factors come into play, like the amount of modules you load (card readers, firewire, usb, kvm, graphics card, etc.). As a result, on a barebones XFCE + 2 terminals + firefox I have:

$ free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          3795        425       3369          0         23        170
-/+ buffers/cache:        231       3563
Swap:         5112          0       5112

However, the same setup in a i686 VM consumes only ~70MB.

Actually, using VM would be an honest way to make a comparison, since you can actually control the hardware.

karol · 2011-11-13 17:02:54

WorMzy wrote:

I still don't understand how people get their RAM usage so low.
I use about 70MB in console, and 350MB in X+openbox.

The real question should be do you need your setup to use less RAM or is it OK as it is?

WorMzy · 2011-11-13 17:16:51

Nah, I'm not fussed about using so much RAM, I've got more than enough after all. It just makes me think I must be doing something wrong, since I seem to be using ten times as much as the next guy (or gal).

n0stradamus · 2011-11-15 14:39:36

Leonid.I wrote:

Well, this statistics is pointless, because noone has mentioned the architecture and actual setups.

Agreed. As an orientation this thread will suffice, I think. I always like looking at memory statistics

I'm running i3 on an x86_64 install of Arch Linux. Not exactly a desktop environment but I'll still post my memory usage here.
My hardware setup is pretty low-end:
Intel Celeron 430 (1.6GHz)
1 GB DDR2
Zotac G31 Value
ATI Radeon HD 4350

At the moment, the following processes are running:

-zsh
\_ xinit
    \_ /usr/bin/i3
/usr/bin/dbus-daemon --fork --print-pid 5 --print-address 7 --session
dbus-launch --autolaunch e5b6e3664beee5ef21a86594000005f4 --binary-syntax --close-stderr
/usr/bin/pidgin
/usr/bin/firefox
 \_ /usr/lib/firefox/plugin-container /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so
i3bar --bar_id=bar-ldzqpx --socket=/home/n0stradamus/.i3/ipc.sock
\_ conky -c /home/n0stradamus/.i3/conki3
urxvtd -q -f
\_ zsh
    \_ ps xf
mpd

And my memory usage:

free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:           997        529        468          0         11        170
-/+ buffers/cache:        347        650
Swap:         7632          0       7632

Vamp898 · 2011-11-15 17:17:29

On my Netbook (without SWAP), after a fresh boot with KDE4 (3D Effects Enabled), my Netbook needs about 90mb of memory (incl. akonadi, MySQL & Co.)

gazj · 2011-11-15 17:43:19

Don't forget xome of us have /tmp in ram aswell

Mad Fish · 2011-11-15 19:52:36

Always report architecture (32bit or 64bit) alongside RAM numbers. Difference in RAM usage between them is quite big.

Vamp898 · 2011-11-15 19:57:42

Oh sorry, im using x86_64 on my current Netbook.

On my older Netbook i was using i686 but didn´t seen a huge memory increase on the x86_64 maybe about 20mb or something like that.

orlonth · 2011-11-16 17:34:39

I'm also a lxde and dwm user, so DE leightweightness is of importance to me.
But I for one try to max out my ram usage. I use preload to load as much libs/data/.. into ram when the system is idle. After a while this greatly speeds up opening applications.
I want my system to fetch as much data from disk as possible before i really need it and preferably without me noticing it.

Here are my stats (amd64):

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          2010       1924         85          0         34       1009
-/+ buffers/cache:        880       1129
Swap:         1906          3       1902

I think (hope) the small swap usage is due to some extensive java eclipse usage.

Last edited by orlonth (2011-11-16 17:37:15)

sidRo · 2011-11-17 05:22:49

Is good if memory is used.
Is good if memory is managed ok.
Why to have low memory usage?
I set the kernel to use more cached memory for good response of applications.
My XFCE use 120 MB - 160 MB of ram.

I don't need preload, I have:

vm.swappiness=16
vm.vfs_cache_pressure=50

My OS: Arch Linux x86_64 XFCE, 2 GB of Ram

Last edited by sidRo (2011-11-17 05:25:33)

Vamp898 · 2011-11-17 09:46:40

The lower your memory is, the lower memory is used.

Some people mix up "need" with "use"

My system right now uses 1,1 GB, if i open the identical windows on my Netbook it needs only about 140mb of memory

My Desktop System have 16 GB Memory and my Netbook have 512mb Memory. Got it?

Only because a system _uses_ 1,1 GB of your RAM, it doesnt mean it _needs_ this memory.

So the more memory you have, the more it will be _used_ to not be wasted and to increase the speed of you applications.

If you really want a very very low memory usage, just put out the memory of your computer and plug a 512mb module. Than you will have the lowest memory usage in your life. And it seems like that is what the most here want.

Grinch · 2011-11-17 12:19:12

Vamp898 wrote:

If you really want a very very low memory usage, just put out the memory of your computer and plug a 512mb module. Than you will have the lowest memory usage in your life. And it seems like that is what the most here want.

You are mixing up cache use with system memory footprint. While it's certainly true that when running the system you want it to use alot of your memory for caching applications and data so that the system doesn't have to load them from disk, cache memory is just a MIRROR of what you have on disk so if you need that memory it can be instantly flushed (with the result that anything flushed will have to be read from disk again should you want to use it). HOWEVER, there also a SYSTEM NEED, which is memory that is used to drive your environment. This can't just be flushed like a cache, instead if you run out of memory it will be written to swap which is something you generally want to avoid as it's very slow. Lowering the SYSTEM NEED is therefore very beneficial, since it means you have alot more memory at your disposal both for usage and caching before your memory is filled and the system starts to use swap space.

Why people here give stats of their system with lots of programs running is something I don't quite understand as it only makes it harder to gauge their system memory usage. The interesting thing is how much your system uses directly after you boot into your desktop as that gives you an idea of how much memory you have available for programs and their corresponding data. Again, lowering the memory usage of your system means more memory available for your applications and also for caching which helps speed things up.

sidRo · 2011-11-17 13:00:05

If You run out of memory, buy memory.
To have speed is more important than memory usage.
To have big cached memory is very good think.

Arch Linux

#1 2011-11-12 19:37:43

RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#2 2011-11-12 19:46:25

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#3 2011-11-12 19:49:18

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#4 2011-11-12 19:55:15

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#5 2011-11-12 20:07:33

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#6 2011-11-13 00:16:45

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#7 2011-11-13 00:31:31

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#8 2011-11-13 01:46:56

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#9 2011-11-13 02:21:55

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#10 2011-11-13 03:32:19

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#11 2011-11-13 13:05:01

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#12 2011-11-13 16:43:29

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#13 2011-11-13 16:53:22

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#14 2011-11-13 17:02:54

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#15 2011-11-13 17:16:51

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#16 2011-11-15 14:39:36

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#17 2011-11-15 17:17:29

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#18 2011-11-15 17:43:19

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#19 2011-11-15 19:52:36

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#20 2011-11-15 19:57:42

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#21 2011-11-16 17:34:39

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#22 2011-11-17 05:22:49

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#23 2011-11-17 09:46:40

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#24 2011-11-17 12:19:12

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#25 2011-11-17 13:00:05

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

Board footer