Memory usage issue?!

Questions about other topics - please check if your question fits better in another category before posting here
Forum rules
Before you post please read this

Memory usage issue?!

Postby photek on Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:34 pm

Hi

i am new around here :D
Mint is really nice
I installed it and started to use it daily and it's just awesome.

I have one little problem though

No matter what i tried my system "eats" as much as 230-240 Mb of RAM on clean install.

I tried some performance tweaks (mostly services and HDD tweaks)but no luck
So i am using Celena
I have only Beryl enabled and nothing else.Well... beside the system processes.

Is it normal to take so much RAM?

My machine is a 2600XP+ with 1 Gb of RAM and an AGP Nvida 256Mb

Thank you
User avatar
photek
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Linux Mint is funded by ads and donations.
 

Postby Husse on Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:14 pm

as much as 230-240 Mb

Well - that's not much - just about 30 MB :)
b is bit - B is byte and it matters
but I don't find 240 MB much, and it's roughly what my system is using and the reports I see tell the same
Firefox 50 MB
Thunderbird 27 MB
X 34 MB
tomboy 10 MB
mintUpdate 22 MB (?!)
Python 13 MB (?!)
That's 156 MB
so it takes a bit of memory, but I've never noticed more than about 380 MB used
Image
Don't fix it if it ain't broken, don't break it if you can't fix it
Husse
Level 21
Level 21
 
Posts: 19710
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:22 am
Location: Near Borås Sweden

Postby andyvr4 on Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:49 am

That might be just a little high, but it's in the range of where you should be. With thunderbird, firefox, pidgin, beryl, and system processes running I'm usually around 250-260 used.
andyvr4
Level 2
Level 2
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:00 pm

Re: Memory usage issue?!

Postby scorp123 on Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:05 pm

photek wrote: No matter what i tried my system "eats" as much as 230-240 Mb of RAM on clean install.
Did you look at the "free" command? Chances are a lot of that memory is used dynamically for disk buffering and not really used up by programs.

Example from my laptop (1 GB RAM):
Code: Select all
 > free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:       1026132     986648      39484          0     296536     360680
-/+ buffers/cache:     329432     696700
Swap:      1172704          0    1172704
If you just look at the "total" (1026132) vs. "used" (986648) section you could think I am running out of memory: "Oh dear, 986 MB are used ..." BUT: As you can see the section "buffers" and "cached" take a total of 696 MB RAM. So if you deduct that you get how much *really* is used by the OS: just a ridiculous 329 MB RAM (out of 1 GB). Swap isn't being used at all, it's all free.

Chances are your output will be similar and most of the "used" RAM will be in the 'buffers' and 'cached' sections.
User avatar
scorp123
Level 8
Level 8
 
Posts: 2287
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: Switzerland

Postby photek on Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:19 pm

Thank you for your answers

In fact i feel it's a bit ... sluggish

I hit the menu button and it's ... kinda delayed if you know what i mean :D
There is a slight slowdown
The overall performance of the system seems to be dragged down by something
I know as well that i don't have the top notch hardware but... i'm a bit frustrated

Just for the sake of testing i downloaded the "''almighty"PC Linux OS

BRACKETS OPENED
I don't want to be mean or to take any sides
and i think it's really foolish to preach the superiority of one distro over another
I've been a Red Hat/Fedora user for a while
I ran away from Fedora/ Mandriva/ ...etc and derivatives just because of the dependencies nightmare
Debian/Ubuntu/Mint offered me what i've been looking for... in years:;; hassle free software installations and i say THANK YOU
That doesnt mean all the others are garbage and ONLY the one that i am using it's worth using like i often see in those so called "reviews:
The Linux world shoud be friendlier and people should just learn from each other

Anyways .... :D
BRACKETS CLOSED

And now that i vented :D

In PC Linux OS the windows pop up on my screen with no effort
Loaded some monitoring tools in Karamba and it seems like i am using as low as
127Mb of RAM -nothing opened
Using Live Cd and no Beryl
Is Beryl using so much RAM?
Damn then :D
Bling bling has its price then huh?! :D
User avatar
photek
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Postby scorp123 on Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:40 pm

photek wrote: In fact i feel it's a bit ... sluggish
Check these files:

/etc/hosts:
Code: Select all
127.0.0.1       localhost   YourHostNameHere
... replace 'YourHostNameHere' with the hostname of your machine. Chances are that this is already setup like this maybe?

Care for some memory tuning maybe? Add these lines to the end of your '/etc/sysctl.conf' file:

/etc/sysctl.conf:
Code: Select all
# Swappiness
# Modification of Swappiness according to this URL:
# http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1255511&postcount=43
# '100' swaps at maximum rate = good for slow machines with little RAM
# '0' tries to avoid swapping = good for fast machines with lots of RAM
# Linux Kernel's default value is 60! (this sucks!)
#
vm.swappiness=1
vm.vfs_cache_pressure=50
... then reboot so that the changes can take effect (there is a way to activate them without rebooting ... it's just I don't remember it at the moment :lol: )

This should increase the perceived speed of your machine and make things 'snappier' .... it sure as hell did on my systems :D
User avatar
scorp123
Level 8
Level 8
 
Posts: 2287
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: Switzerland

Postby scorp123 on Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:43 pm

photek wrote: Is Beryl using so much RAM?
Nope. I use it all the time. It's fast like hell here, e.g. right now on my laptop (hp dv2108ea with 1 GB RAM, 1.6 GHz Intel Core Duo CPU, Intel GMA950 graphics, 100 GB SATA). The memory figures I provided earlier were done while Beryl + Emerald were running.

If you feel your system is 'sluggish' then maybe something isn't setup or configured right.
User avatar
scorp123
Level 8
Level 8
 
Posts: 2287
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: Switzerland

Postby linuxviolin on Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:54 am

scorp123 wrote:there is a way to activate them without rebooting ... it's just I don't remember it at the moment :lol:

Maybe you can reload them with

/sbin/sysctl -p

:wink:
K.I.S.S. ===> "Keep It Simple, Stupid"
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." (Leonardo da Vinci)
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." (Albert Einstein)
User avatar
linuxviolin
Level 8
Level 8
 
Posts: 2055
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: France

Postby scorp123 on Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:15 am

linuxviolin wrote: /sbin/sysctl -p
Duh. :lol: Of course :lol: (or why else would the config file be named sysctl.conf ...?) Oh dear. Note to self: more coffee ...... :D

Thanks 8)
User avatar
scorp123
Level 8
Level 8
 
Posts: 2287
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: Switzerland

Postby Husse on Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:30 pm

I have a feeling that the /etc/hosts file should look like
Code: Select all
127.0.0.1   localhost
127.0.1.1   <your user name>

I used the sysctl tip as I have 2 GB RAM I would not need the default 60 :)
It remains to be seen if I note any difference
Image
Don't fix it if it ain't broken, don't break it if you can't fix it
Husse
Level 21
Level 21
 
Posts: 19710
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:22 am
Location: Near Borås Sweden

Postby scorp123 on Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:31 pm

Husse wrote:I have a feeling that the /etc/hosts file should look like
Code: Select all
127.0.0.1   localhost
127.0.1.1   <your user name>
"your user name" ??? Definitely not :lol:

Ask yourself: What's your username doing in a file dealing with resolving hostnames to TCP/IP addresses? If anything you could put your hostname there. But it's silly. There is no interface that has that address "127.0.1.1", so this would resolve to nothing (you could just as well leave the entire line away). Hence it's better to put it to the loopback interface (lo0) where 127.0.0.1 will correctly resolve to it.
User avatar
scorp123
Level 8
Level 8
 
Posts: 2287
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: Switzerland

Postby photek on Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:22 pm

Thank you guys for your kind replies!

I am still trying my best here :D


Lastly i'll try a new kernel and see how it goes.
I'll keep you posted :D


thanks again!
User avatar
photek
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Postby Husse on Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:05 am

@ scorp
I agree with
What's your username doing in a file dealing with resolving hostname

It should be <your host name> which often is Your_user_name-desktop or so
Edit//Removed some content - sometimes I write faster than I think :oops:
but yes I was wrong :cry:
My memory did not serve me right
It should be
Code: Select all
127.0.0.1 localhost <your host name>
127.0.1.1 <your host name>

The reason for this found here
http://www.linuxmint.com/wiki/index.php ... /etc/hosts
Image
Don't fix it if it ain't broken, don't break it if you can't fix it
Husse
Level 21
Level 21
 
Posts: 19710
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:22 am
Location: Near Borås Sweden

Postby linuxviolin on Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:22 pm

For some explanations on swappiness, vfs_cache_pressure to accelerate Linux you can look at http://rudd-o.com/archives/2007/10/02/tales-from-responsivenessland-why-linux-feels-slow-and-how-to-fix-that/

See also at http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.7/2.6.7-mm1/broken-out/vfs-shrinkage-tuning.patch
for some info on vfs_cache_pressure

A critical yet: man command is our friend, this is the truth (hey scorp?! :wink: ) but this is one of the places where the Linux kernel sucks, because it doesn't quite follow the claimed philosophy. man sysctl and man sysctl.conf DON'T DOCUMENT ANY of the system variables! :twisted:

So for cache_pressure we really need to do some blind experiments.
K.I.S.S. ===> "Keep It Simple, Stupid"
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." (Leonardo da Vinci)
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." (Albert Einstein)
User avatar
linuxviolin
Level 8
Level 8
 
Posts: 2055
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: France

Postby GoustiFruit on Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:30 am

Wow, just checked and MintUpdate is using 35+ MB here !?

Also Tomboy takes 12 MB, I think I'm going to disable it :?
User avatar
GoustiFruit
Level 4
Level 4
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:07 am

Postby linuxviolin on Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:51 am

GoustiFruit wrote:Also Tomboy takes 12 MB, I think I'm going to disable it

Doesn't just disable it but remove it! :lol:
It is a Mono ('Microsoft') application. More, it comes with 4 .dll and 2 .exe (see at http://packages.debian.org/etch/tomboy/i386/filelist) - as I said about Banshee at http://linuxmint.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=6142&p=39522#p39522 that is exactly what you needed to feel "at home" in Linux. :twisted:
K.I.S.S. ===> "Keep It Simple, Stupid"
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." (Leonardo da Vinci)
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." (Albert Einstein)
User avatar
linuxviolin
Level 8
Level 8
 
Posts: 2055
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: France

Linux Mint is funded by ads and donations.
 

Return to Other topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests