RAM Usage for different Desktops?

Grinch · 2011-11-17 13:48:26

sidRo wrote:

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.

You obviously don't understand, there's no sacrifice of speed when lowering system memory requirements. It's the opposite, the less ram the base system uses the more is available for caching, which is where that 'speed' you were talking of comes from.

karabaja4 · 2011-11-17 13:55:52

What I don't understand is why Xorg at 1024x768 laptop uses <10mb memory, and on 1920x1200 desktop uses >50mb?

pogeymanz · 2011-11-17 14:25:30

karabaja4 wrote:

What I don't understand is why Xorg at 1024x768 laptop uses <10mb memory, and on 1920x1200 desktop uses >50mb?

Probably because they have different amounts of RAM?
Is this upon a fresh boot?

karabaja4 · 2011-11-17 16:11:19

pogeymanz wrote:

Probably because they have different amounts of RAM?
Is this upon a fresh boot?

They both have 1gb of RAM, and yes, this is on a fresh boot.

Total RAM usage on my laptop boot is about 30mb, and on my desktop about 120mb (pretty much the same Openbox configuration).

Last edited by karabaja4 (2011-11-17 16:15:12)

Leonid.I · 2011-11-17 16:57:14

karabaja4 wrote:

What I don't understand is why Xorg at 1024x768 laptop uses <10mb memory, and on 1920x1200 desktop uses >50mb?

It's not all about resolution, but video drivers and supporting modules as well.

In general, I can only repeat that famous phrase: "unused ram is wasted ram".

sidRo · 2011-11-17 17:23:04

Grinch wrote:

sidRo wrote:
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.
You obviously don't understand, there's no sacrifice of speed when lowering system memory requirements. It's the opposite, the less ram the base system uses the more is available for caching, which is where that 'speed' you were talking of comes from.

I don't say if you have low system memory requirements your system is slow.
I say if you have ram use it, don't let the memory free.
Try to have cached memory if you want 'little' performance here and there.
You got that?
A little WM don't help when you want to use a full desktop capability or you want eye candy.
A WM is good but not allways.

Grinch · 2011-11-17 18:12:11

sidRo wrote:

I say if you have ram use it, don't let the memory free.

It will be used, the question is how much of it is used for the bare system and how much is available for applications and caching. The system caches automatically, it also flushes the cache automatically when it needs the memory used by the cache, the more memory available the less chance that the cache needs to be flushed which results in having to read that data from disk instead of ram).

The less ram your base system use, the more ram is available for applications and caching of applications (as in keeping them in ram when you exit them thus launching them from ram when you want to run them again).

So for instance if you use a desktop environment such as gnome or kde, the amount of ram it requires just to utilize that environment is larger than if you were running openbox for instance. That means that when running openbox you will have MORE ram left for applications and caching than you would have if you were using gnome or kde. I have one 4gb and one 8gb ram machine and I still like my base system lean because I want to have as much ram available for the applications I run, which often amount to several firefox instances, inkscape, gimp, blender (often several instances) encoding with x264, etc etc. Being able to run as many of these apps simultaneously as possible without having the machine resorting to swapping is of great use to me and helps my workflow. If I use a base system which uses more ram then it means less memory available to these applications.

Now obviously this is all about what you need, if you don't use the majority of your available ram at a regular basis then there's no reason to try and keep your system lean. But for those of us who do it's wonderful that Linux offers the possibility of a fully functional while very lean system. Currently my system running openbox, tint2, feh, conky, and cairo-compmgr uses 132mb ram with 64bit linux while on the same machine windows xp 32-bit used 146mb, I find Linux amazing in that regard.

sidRo wrote:

A little WM don't help when you want to use a full desktop capability or you want eye candy.
A WM is good but not allways.

VM, virtual machine? I'm not following.

sidRo · 2011-11-17 18:46:10

You wrong.
If you have 512 MB ram metter, if you have 4 GB ram or more don't metter how much ram use your DE.
To flush the memory is wrong.
If your ram is free and you have little cached memory than is wrong way.

WM = Window Manager

Last edited by sidRo (2011-11-17 18:46:36)

Grinch · 2011-11-18 13:23:45

sidRo wrote:

You wrong.
If you have 512 MB ram metter, if you have 4 GB ram or more don't metter how much ram use your DE.

No you are wrong. Of course the system ram usage it matters even though I have 4gb. The more ram the base system (which includes a DE) LESS is available for applications and caching.

sidRo wrote:

To flush the memory is wrong.

The cached memory is flushed automatically when the system and/or applications need that memory. Again, less memory used by the system means less flushing of cached memory.

sidRo wrote:

If your ram is free and you have little cached memory than is wrong way.

Cached memory is not the same as that REQUIRED by the system. Linux caches aggressively automatically which is great, noone is complaining about that. If your base system uses less memory then it means Linux can cache MORE which = BETTER.

sidRo wrote:

WM = Window Manager

Heh, first I thought you were thinking about 'Virtual Memory' since it made some sense in the context but had mispelled it, all these acronyms...

sidRo · 2011-11-20 10:56:42

OK.
Use less memory and less cached memory.
You are totaly wrong.
I am happy with my settings. HDD is slower than a memory ram.

Linux can cache MORE which = BETTER.

Correct.

No you are wrong. Of course the system ram usage it matters even though I have 4gb. The more ram the base system (which includes a DE) LESS is available for applications and caching.

Depends on what you do with that PC.
Or for what you use your PC.
For desktop is more or less correct.

The cached memory is flushed automatically when the system and/or applications need that memory. Again, less memory used by the system means less flushing of cached memory.

Let kernel to flush your memory, don't do that yourself.

For me topic is closed. I don't need flames or war.

Vamp898 · 2011-11-21 21:09:58

btw. i wrote a small skript which just fills the memory. With that you can flush your memory if you want.

You system needs 2GB of 16GB, just run that skript until 10-15GB are filled (for sure recalculate for your RAM amount) and abort it with ctrl-c. After that your system only needs 300mb of memory or even less.

Its slow as hell then but it seems like that is what peoplw ant here slow and less memory usage seems to be prefeered over fast and more memory usage.

sidRo · 2011-11-22 06:11:50

Ironic but true.

/dev/zero · 2011-11-22 07:02:59

I'm kind of surprised I'm using as much as a gig of my RAM. OTOH, I'm kind of punishing this laptop by making it run music and so forth. (I still like Dethklok even through these shitty little speakers.)

System

uname -a
Linux quasit 3.1.1-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Nov 11 22:05:37 UTC 2011 i686 Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2430M CPU @ 2.40GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux

RAM

free | grep Mem
Mem:       2694640    1072296    1622344          0      16220     681256

Processes

ps ux | awk '{print $11}' | sort | uniq | remove_irrelevant_data
dbus-launch
gnome-pty-helper
gpg-agent
mplayer
/opt/google/talkplugin/GoogleTalkPlugin
roxterm
/usr/bin/dbus-daemon
/usr/lib/chromium/chromium
wmii
wmiir

Grinch · 2011-11-22 17:00:40

sidRo wrote:

Use less memory and less cached memory.

I said no such thing, using less system memory means MORE memory available for caching.

sidRo wrote:

I am happy with my settings. HDD is slower than a memory ram.

Yes, which is why it's good to have as much memory available for caching as possible as it mirrors data you would otherwise have to load from the harddrive.

sidRo wrote:

Depends on what you do with that PC.
Or for what you use your PC.
For desktop is more or less correct.

The less memory your base system uses then more is available for applications and caching no matter what your usage pattern is. However for certain usage patterns it obviously doesn't matter if you keep a lean system, if you never use anything near your ram capacity then there's no gain by keeping your system ram usage low.

sidRo wrote:

Let kernel to flush your memory, don't do that yourself.

Who said anything about flushing the memory cache manually? I'm beginning to belive that there's a strong language barrier here.

sidRo wrote:

For me topic is closed. I don't need flames or war.

I don't think disagreeing equals flames or war, I thought this arguing was civil.

sidRo · 2011-11-23 07:56:19

@Grinch

Who said anything about flushing the memory cache manually? I'm beginning to belive that there's a strong language barrier here.

Probably.

I sustained ideea of memoy cached.
I say is good to have memory cached.
For desktop users is good to have a balance of memory used by DE/WM and usability.
If I am noob I will stay with XFCE if I want less memory used by DE/WM.
If I am geek I will go with a WM.
If I am noob eye candy user I will go with KDE or Gnome 3.
If I have old hardware I will go with a decent DE/WM for my hardware.

All this requirements are differently from user to user.

This is what I argue. A linux config depends what hardware and requirements have and need an user.

Last edited by sidRo (2011-11-23 07:57:35)

Vamp898 · 2011-11-23 17:37:57

Linus Torvalds used KDE and GNOME for years, so it seems like he is an noob eye candy user.

sidRo · 2011-11-24 05:15:10

I gave same examples.
If you have misunderstood is not my problem.
Examples should not be treated literally.

Linus Torvalds used KDE and GNOME for years, so it seems like he is an noob eye candy user.

This is a joke.
Your irony is @#$#%#.

Last edited by sidRo (2011-11-24 06:05:28)

Vamp898 · 2011-11-26 10:11:34

The sentence was just to show how absurd your examples are.There are so many examples which would fit better. For example that people use KDE for historical reasons (they used it since ever) or people use it because a firend told "use that, its the best in world" or people use it because it looks like Windows in case of the Taskbar is on the bottom and the start button is on the bottom left.

Most noob users fail completely with KDE in case they think the Desktop is the Desktop and they are not aware that the Desktops looks just like the setup it. If it looks and acts bad, they set it up like that (or even dont setup anything).

So i doubt that noobs will use or stay with KDE for long, they will go to GNOME because they dont have to setup anything there (which have advantages and disadvantages).

Same thing about the eyecandy, you can let KDE look like CDE/Motif, not very eyecandy at all.

So those examples are so far away from reality that i just needed something show how absurd it is. It doesnt help anyone to give such examples, not in any way. The opposite, it let people think they have to choose a different DE because they are not able to setup the one they currently use.

KDE with enabled Desktop effects run with less than 100mb of memory, so i dont think its _that_ much about the hardware which DE you uses, its mostly about what you want.

If your DE uses a lot of hardware ressources, you just setup it wrong.

GI Jack · 2011-11-26 21:05:54

given the arch doesn't have a default desktop install, and the fact that arch is designed for very fine grain control on package management its only fair to assume that diffrent archers have diffrent packages installed, and diffrent things in their daemons() array.

network manager vs wicd ?

my live OS desktop uses 289 mb of ram after booting with absolute minimum XFCE desktop

my ubuntu desktop uses 900 megabytes of RAM using gnome shell and some wigets.(also run two monitors)

Then there is usage

Vamp898 · 2011-11-27 10:48:13

Oh you´re right. I used the wrong word.

There is usage, but not need.

My EeePC can run Ubuntu with GNOME-Shell and Unity, and my EeePC only have 512mb of memory. But it "needs" a bit more than KDE because about 200mb are used after the boot. But this is also Ubuntus fault, on Archlinux i have less with GNOME-Shell

sidRo · 2011-11-28 05:58:11

KDE with enabled Desktop effects run with less than 100mb of memory.

This is a joke.
KDE 4 with less than 100 MB of memory?
Where?
I need to see this KDE 4 setup.

So i doubt that noobs will use or stay with KDE for long, they will go to GNOME because they dont have to setup anything there (which have advantages and disadvantages).

KDE is windows like, gnome no.
Most noobs users preffer KDE because KDE make transition more easy.
Gnome 3 have an iOS interface and this isn't windows like.
Gnome and Unity mimics MacOS X.
I don't like mimics DE.
But this my taste.

Last edited by sidRo (2011-11-28 05:58:40)

Vamp898 · 2011-11-28 11:12:46

This is a joke.
KDE 4 with less than 100 MB of memory?
Where?
I need to see this KDE 4 setup.

Ok you are right, that was my fault. Since KDE 4.7 it needs about 130mb but that is quite very less. Still less than GNOME

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2064 … foto6p.png

The last time i tested was 4.5 (which is still on my EeePC, i hate to update that thing xD only 4GB of HDD)

Most Windows Users fail with KDE because KDE have much to many settings. Most Users for example dont understand why the Desktop is a widget and how to bring it back after they deleted it. Also they tend to delete the "Open Window Widget" when trying to close a window and are never able to bring it back.

KDE is much to complex for a windows user. GNOME is Like windows, just with two panel (or it was like that until 2.32)

It seems like you started KDE one time "oh it looks like windows" and then ended it.

KDE make transition more easy.

That is just plain wrong. KDE works completely different than windows in nearly every way i can think. That makes transition more complex than with every other DE. KDE is a piece of Software for people who want to change everything and setup everything until the very end.

Windows is designed to be as easy as possible.

GNOME is designed to be as easy as possible.

So KDE and Windows are different in nearly every way you can think where Windows and GNOME follow the same target: as easy as possible.

Last edited by Vamp898 (2011-11-28 11:21:14)

bwat47 · 2011-12-06 23:58:27

There is a lot more to performance than ram usage. For example XFCE uses similar amounts of ram compared to GNOME, but XFCE can feel significantly more responsive on the same hardware. I only worry about ram usage if I am on an ancient PC with <512 mb of ram, in that case you'd probably want to use something like LXDE or a window manager.

PReP · 2011-12-07 02:51:38

This is my memory during everyday use (and a screenshot sneaked in):

(This was a screenshot, but it bloated the thread)

(1600 Mhz XMP RAM Usage: 686 MB
(10%)
Free: 7.12 GiB of 7.79 GiB)

My running daemons: DAEMONS=(ntpd syslog-ng network crond alsa !sshd)

And i don't have a swap partition.

In X, i run

. MPD in http-stream mode
. Openbox
. bmpanel2
. a Sakura terminal (desk 3)
. firefox (desk 2)

I also believe that using more ram is a good thing.

Think of it this way, if it uses X amounts of RAM,
But still are instantly responsive when running and switching tasks,
- Then all is well.

Last edited by PReP (2011-12-07 11:26:44)

MrCode · 2011-12-07 06:38:18

(and a screenshot sneaked in)

…kind of a big screenshot, don't you think?

The mods will probably notice that and "fix" it.

Arch Linux

#26 2011-11-17 13:48:26

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#27 2011-11-17 13:55:52

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#28 2011-11-17 14:25:30

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#29 2011-11-17 16:11:19

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#30 2011-11-17 16:57:14

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#31 2011-11-17 17:23:04

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#32 2011-11-17 18:12:11

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#33 2011-11-17 18:46:10

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#34 2011-11-18 13:23:45

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#35 2011-11-20 10:56:42

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#36 2011-11-21 21:09:58

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#37 2011-11-22 06:11:50

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#38 2011-11-22 07:02:59

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

System

RAM

Processes

#39 2011-11-22 17:00:40

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#40 2011-11-23 07:56:19

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#41 2011-11-23 17:37:57

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#42 2011-11-24 05:15:10

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#43 2011-11-26 10:11:34

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#44 2011-11-26 21:05:54

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#45 2011-11-27 10:48:13

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#46 2011-11-28 05:58:11

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#47 2011-11-28 11:12:46

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#48 2011-12-06 23:58:27

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#49 2011-12-07 02:51:38

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

#50 2011-12-07 06:38:18

Re: RAM Usage for different Desktops?

Board footer