Not a question, just an observation.
I say that Linux doesn't seem to handle memory well because my laptop
had 8GB RAM (which, frankly, Windows seems to find perfectly adequate
for a similar workload). Under Linux the RAM would fill up and then swap >space would be used. Then the machine would become largely unresponsive
- e.g. taking minutes to switch between windows.
So I upgraded the RAM. It now has three times as much (i.e. 24GB)! But
even so, RAM has still steadily filled up until reaching the full 24GB. >What's more, it's now showing 4.8GB of swap space in use.
Not a question, just an observation.
I say that Linux doesn't seem to handle memory well because my laptop
had 8GB RAM (which, frankly, Windows seems to find perfectly adequate
for a similar workload). Under Linux the RAM would fill up and then swap space would be used. Then the machine would become largely unresponsive
- e.g. taking minutes to switch between windows.
So I upgraded the RAM. It now has three times as much (i.e. 24GB)! But
even so, RAM has still steadily filled up until reaching the full 24GB. What's more, it's now showing 4.8GB of swap space in use.
Not a question, just an observation.
I say that Linux doesn't seem to handle memory well because my laptop
had 8GB RAM (which, frankly, Windows seems to find perfectly adequate
for a similar workload). Under Linux the RAM would fill up and then swap space would be used. Then the machine would become largely unresponsive
- e.g. taking minutes to switch between windows.
So I upgraded the RAM. It now has three times as much (i.e. 24GB)! But
even so, RAM has still steadily filled up until reaching the full 24GB. What's more, it's now showing 4.8GB of swap space in use.
On 01/05/2024 11:32, James Harris wrote:
Not a question, just an observation.That's not Linux. That's a rogue program with a memory leak...
I say that Linux doesn't seem to handle memory well because my laptop
had 8GB RAM (which, frankly, Windows seems to find perfectly adequate
for a similar workload). Under Linux the RAM would fill up and then swap
space would be used. Then the machine would become largely unresponsive
- e.g. taking minutes to switch between windows.
So I upgraded the RAM. It now has three times as much (i.e. 24GB)! But
even so, RAM has still steadily filled up until reaching the full 24GB.
What's more, it's now showing 4.8GB of swap space in use.
Not a question, just an observation.
I say that Linux doesn't seem to handle memory well because my laptop
had 8GB RAM (which, frankly, Windows seems to find perfectly adequate
for a similar workload).
Under Linux the RAM would fill up and then swap
space would be used. Then the machine would become largely unresponsive
- e.g. taking minutes to switch between windows.
So I upgraded the RAM. It now has three times as much (i.e. 24GB)! But
even so, RAM has still steadily filled up until reaching the full 24GB. What's more, it's now showing 4.8GB of swap space in use.
I say that Linux doesn't seem to handle memory well because my laptop
had 8GB RAM (which, frankly, Windows seems to find perfectly adequate
for a similar workload). Under Linux the RAM would fill up and then
swap space would be used. Then the machine would become largely
unresponsive
- e.g. taking minutes to switch between windows.
So I upgraded the RAM. It now has three times as much (i.e. 24GB)!
But even so, RAM has still steadily filled up until reaching the full
24GB.
Not a question, just an observation.
I say that Linux doesn't seem to handle memory well because my laptop
had 8GB RAM (which, frankly, Windows seems to find perfectly adequate
for a similar workload). Under Linux the RAM would fill up and then swap space would be used. Then the machine would become largely unresponsive
- e.g. taking minutes to switch between windows.
So I upgraded the RAM. It now has three times as much (i.e. 24GB)! But
even so, RAM has still steadily filled up until reaching the full 24GB. What's more, it's now showing 4.8GB of swap space in use.
On 5/1/24 05:32, James Harris wrote:
Not a question, just an observation.
There more to it than just the amount of free RAM.
I say that Linux doesn't seem to handle memory well because my laptop
had 8GB RAM (which, frankly, Windows seems to find perfectly adequate
for a similar workload). Under Linux the RAM would fill up and then swap
space would be used. Then the machine would become largely unresponsive
- e.g. taking minutes to switch between windows.
Linux uses otherwise unused RAM for disk cache:
Link - Help! Linux ate my RAM!
- https://www.linuxatemyram.com/
But using swap tells me that something else, not just Linux itself, is consuming / leaking memory.
So I upgraded the RAM. It now has three times as much (i.e. 24GB)! But
even so, RAM has still steadily filled up until reaching the full 24GB.
What's more, it's now showing 4.8GB of swap space in use.
See what's using the swap. That's going to be the offending process.
Run `top`
Hit the `f` key to add a field.
Scroll down to SWAP and hit the space ` ` key to turn the swap column on.
Hit the `s` key while still on SWAP to make it the sort column.
Hit the `q` key to go back to the main screen and see what's using swap.
Not a question, just an observation.
I say that Linux doesn't seem to handle memory well because my laptop had 8GB RAM (which, frankly, Windows seems to find perfectly adequate for a similar workload). Under Linux the RAM would fill up and then swap space would be used. Then the machine would become largely unresponsive - e.g. taking minutes to switch between windows.
So I upgraded the RAM. It now has three times as much (i.e. 24GB)! But even so, RAM has still steadily filled up until reaching the full 24GB. What's more, it's now showing 4.8GB of swap space in use.
I prefer htop.
On Wed, 01 May 2024 11:32:18 +0100, James Harris wrote:...
Not a question, just an observation.
So, if you want help, how about providing some details.
Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 11:32:18 +0100, James Harris wrote:...
Not a question, just an observation.
So, if you want help, how about providing some details.
OP was pretty clear that he was *not* seeking help.
That's not Linux. That's a rogue program with a memory leak...
OP was pretty clear that he was *not* seeking help.
Indeed, though it’s possible that requesting help might have saved him
the cost of 16GB of RAM, wasted time, etc.
On 5/1/24 11:44, candycanearter07 wrote:
I prefer htop.
To each their own.
As long as their own gets the job done.
I've stuck with top as many systems I've worked on didn't have htop
installed and I never felt compelled to justify why htop needed to be >installed / top wouldn't suffice to the change approval board.
Indeed, though it’s possible that requesting help might have saved him
the cost of 16GB of RAM, wasted time, etc.
In article <v0tkdc$3780t$1@dont-email.me>,
Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 11:32:18 +0100, James Harris wrote:...
Not a question, just an observation.
So, if you want help, how about providing some details.
OP was pretty clear that he was *not* seeking help.
Not a question, just an observation.
I say that Linux doesn't seem to handle memory well because my laptop
had 8GB RAM (which, frankly, Windows seems to find perfectly adequate
for a similar workload). Under Linux the RAM would fill up and then swap space would be used. Then the machine would become largely unresponsive
- e.g. taking minutes to switch between windows.
So I upgraded the RAM. It now has three times as much (i.e. 24GB)! But
even so, RAM has still steadily filled up until reaching the full 24GB. What's more, it's now showing 4.8GB of swap space in use.
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Indeed, though it’s possible that requesting help might have saved him
the cost of 16GB of RAM, wasted time, etc.
Thankfully, 16 Gig are not that expensive nowadays.
No mechanic ever had to appear in front of a board to justify the use of spanner and screw driver, right?
On 02/05/2024 07:45, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2024 07:47:19 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
No mechanic ever had to appear in front of a board to justify the use of >>> spanner and screw driver, right?
I’m sure they do, to whomever controls the purse strings at the garage.
Well indeed. Although not a board, just the boss.
On Thu, 02 May 2024 07:47:19 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
No mechanic ever had to appear in front of a board to justify the use of
spanner and screw driver, right?
I’m sure they do, to whomever controls the purse strings at the garage.
On Thu, 02 May 2024 07:47:19 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
No mechanic ever had to appear in front of a board to justify the use of
spanner and screw driver, right?
I’m sure they do, to whomever controls the purse strings at the garage.
On 2024-05-01 22:42, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <v0tkdc$3780t$1@dont-email.me>,
Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 11:32:18 +0100, James Harris wrote:...
Not a question, just an observation.
So, if you want help, how about providing some details.
OP was pretty clear that he was *not* seeking help.
Because he is blaming Linux at large, when he has a problem in *his*
system. He made a wrong diagnosis.
On 2024-05-02 09:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/2024 07:45, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2024 07:47:19 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:Well indeed. Although not a board, just the boss.
No mechanic ever had to appear in front of a board to justify the use of >>>> spanner and screw driver, right?
I’m sure they do, to whomever controls the purse strings at the garage. >>
My mechanic boss has to query the board. It is a chain.
Not for a spanner, but for expensive diagnostic tools.
On Thu, 02 May 2024 07:47:19 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
No mechanic ever had to appear in front of a board to justify the use of
spanner and screw driver, right?
I’m sure they do, to whomever controls the purse strings at the garage.
On 2024-05-01 12:32, James Harris wrote:
Not a question, just an observation.
I say that Linux doesn't seem to handle memory well because my laptop
had 8GB RAM (which, frankly, Windows seems to find perfectly adequate
for a similar workload). Under Linux the RAM would fill up and then swap
space would be used. Then the machine would become largely unresponsive
- e.g. taking minutes to switch between windows.
So I upgraded the RAM. It now has three times as much (i.e. 24GB)! But
even so, RAM has still steadily filled up until reaching the full 24GB.
What's more, it's now showing 4.8GB of swap space in use.
No, your analysis is not correct.
You have some buggy application or service that is eating all the
memory. You have to search and hunt for it.
It may be unwise to assume there's such expertise. A number of years ago
I came up with what I thought was a sensible design for a paging system.
I later found that it corresponded very closely to the one used in
Windows and differed markedly from the paging system used in Linux. I >remember thinking that the latter was not a good design and since then
I've experienced problems with Linux when memory fills up which I tend
to assume are down to the design of its paging system - hence the,
admittedly provocative, title of this thread.
James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote:
It may be unwise to assume there's such expertise. A number of years ago
I came up with what I thought was a sensible design for a paging system.
I later found that it corresponded very closely to the one used in
Windows and differed markedly from the paging system used in Linux. I >>remember thinking that the latter was not a good design and since then
I've experienced problems with Linux when memory fills up which I tend
to assume are down to the design of its paging system - hence the, >>admittedly provocative, title of this thread.
There is more than way to do it. Windows and Linux are both operating systems, and still fundamentally different. For example, firing up a
new process is vastly more expensive in Windows than Linux's fork() mechanism. There is no "better" or "worse" in that comparision.
I don't know enough about VMS, but didn't the guy who led the design
the process and memory management layer for Windows NT come from
Digital Equipment?
The core innards of NT are supposedly *very* VMS like.
On 01/05/2024 15:06, David W. Hodgins wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 06:32:18 -0400, James Harris
<james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote:
Not a question, just an observation.
I say that Linux doesn't seem to handle memory well because my laptop
had 8GB RAM (which, frankly, Windows seems to find perfectly adequate
for a similar workload). Under Linux the RAM would fill up and then swap >>> space would be used. Then the machine would become largely unresponsive
- e.g. taking minutes to switch between windows.
So I upgraded the RAM. It now has three times as much (i.e. 24GB)! But
even so, RAM has still steadily filled up until reaching the full 24GB.
What's more, it's now showing 4.8GB of swap space in use.
Likely you're using a system that's configured for maximum total
throughput,
not best response time.
Create a file, /etc/sysctl.d/tales.conf with the contents ...
# Reduce applications being swapped
vm.swappiness=1
# Don't shrink the inode cache
vm.vfs_cache_pressure=50
Then run the command "sysctl --system" (as root).
See
https://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/tales-from-responsivenessland-why-linux-feels-slow-and-how-to-fix-that
for an explanation.
I very much like the control that Linux gives to a user but ISTM that
what you say here is a great example of the issue I was pointing out in
the original post: IMO page depletion should be handled better *by
default* and not need human intervention for normal scenarios.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2024 07:47:19 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
No mechanic ever had to appear in front of a board to justify the use of >>> spanner and screw driver, right?
I’m sure they do, to whomever controls the purse strings at the garage.
At nearly all auto-shops, the basic tools (spanners/screwdrivers/etc.)
are purchased and owned by the actual mechanics using them and not the operator of the garage. What the shop owner provides are the "infrastructure" items (lifts, air compressor, some of the more
specialized tools, such as the tyre changer or the 'computer diagnostic rack', etc.).
I very much like the control that Linux gives to a user but ISTM that
what you say here is a great example of the issue I was pointing out in
the original post: IMO page depletion should be handled better *by
default* and not need human intervention for normal scenarios.
On 02/05/2024 07:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-05-01 22:42, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <v0tkdc$3780t$1@dont-email.me>,
Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 11:32:18 +0100, James Harris wrote:...
Not a question, just an observation.
So, if you want help, how about providing some details.
OP was pretty clear that he was *not* seeking help.
Because he is blaming Linux at large, when he has a problem in *his*
system. He made a wrong diagnosis.
Yes, I am (at least tentatively) blaming Linux but not for the problem
you think. I wouldn't expect Linux to prevent programs from gobbling up memory but I would expect it to manage memory hogs more gracefully than
it does. IME Windows handles the same situation better - and that may be
down to the different designs of their paging systems.
Don't get me wrong. I much prefer Linux to Windows and have often seen Windows get into a worse situation under different circumstances. But
for page management ISTM that the design of Linux's paging subsystem may
not be the best.
On 2024-05-02 16:06, James Harris wrote:
Yes, I am (at least tentatively) blaming Linux but not for the problem
you think. I wouldn't expect Linux to prevent programs from gobbling up
memory but I would expect it to manage memory hogs more gracefully than
it does. IME Windows handles the same situation better - and that may be
down to the different designs of their paging systems.
Don't get me wrong. I much prefer Linux to Windows and have often seen
Windows get into a worse situation under different circumstances. But
for page management ISTM that the design of Linux's paging subsystem may
not be the best.
You can configure Linux to crash the application that is behaving badly
by grabbing all the memory. It is up to you, the boss.
The philosophy is not to nanny care for you. It does what you asked.
More memory? Yes sir. Till death does us part. Your orders will be obeyed.
:-)
On 01/05/2024 11:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/05/2024 11:32, James Harris wrote:
Not a question, just an observation.That's not Linux. That's a rogue program with a memory leak...
I say that Linux doesn't seem to handle memory well because my laptop
had 8GB RAM (which, frankly, Windows seems to find perfectly adequate
for a similar workload). Under Linux the RAM would fill up and then
swap space would be used. Then the machine would become largely
unresponsive - e.g. taking minutes to switch between windows.
So I upgraded the RAM. It now has three times as much (i.e. 24GB)!
But even so, RAM has still steadily filled up until reaching the full
24GB. What's more, it's now showing 4.8GB of swap space in use.
It may not be a memory leak but it's certainly a rogue program - chrome/chromium in this case, though I've had similar and worse problems
with Firefox which seems to me more likely to have a genuine memory leak.
However, the point of the original post was to vent a frustration about
the way that Linux handles such memory deletion when it happens.
what you say here is a great example of the issue I was pointing out in
the original post: IMO page depletion should be handled better *by
default* and not need human intervention for normal scenarios.
On 01/05/2024 21:42, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <v0tkdc$3780t$1@dont-email.me>,
Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 11:32:18 +0100, James Harris wrote:...
Not a question, just an observation.
So, if you want help, how about providing some details.
OP was pretty clear that he was *not* seeking help.
Correct. I don't want to overtax the expert assistance that's clearly available from posters to this newsgroup and would rather ask for help relatively rarely, so I am not looking (at least, yet!) for a solution.
My point, in this thread, was, instead, to comment on what I perceive to
be an OS-design issue - a long-term interest.
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-05-02 16:06, James Harris wrote:
Yes, I am (at least tentatively) blaming Linux but not for the problem
you think. I wouldn't expect Linux to prevent programs from gobbling up
memory but I would expect it to manage memory hogs more gracefully than
it does. IME Windows handles the same situation better - and that may be >>> down to the different designs of their paging systems.
Don't get me wrong. I much prefer Linux to Windows and have often seen
Windows get into a worse situation under different circumstances. But
for page management ISTM that the design of Linux's paging subsystem may >>> not be the best.
You can configure Linux to crash the application that is behaving badly
by grabbing all the memory. It is up to you, the boss.
The philosophy is not to nanny care for you. It does what you asked.
More memory? Yes sir. Till death does us part. Your orders will be obeyed. >>
:-)
I didn't know there was an option not to have it do that (via the
Out Of Memory Reaper). It seems the alternatives are to reboot or
risk the kernel crashing, so your description seems about right.
https://www.oracle.com/technical-resources/articles/it-infrastructure/dev-oom-killer.html
The OP has noted now that the process that consumes their RAM is
Chrome or Firefox. I've not seen a detailed description of why it
happens, but I've long noted that Firefox seems to expand its RAM
usage to the available space, but different from a memory leak in
that it usually leaves a certain amount free. I assume that this
in intended behaviour. I run current Firefox on a PC with 2GB RAM
and I don't have it getting killed by the kernel, nor do I have
problems with kernel crashes/reboots. I've also tried running
recent Firefox on a PC with 512MB RAM and noticed that it performs
much worse than with 2GB RAM, slowing down to a crawl while loading
some websites, suggesting that it really does need more RAM in that
case.
I don't use web browsers to play video. If you're streaming super
high resolution video through your browser with the latest and
greatest compression algorithms, then it probably has the right
to chew up a lot of RAM.
On 03/05/2024 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
I run current Firefox on a PC with 2GB RAMI use browsers to play videos. RAM usage is not massive. CPU usage is.
and I don't have it getting killed by the kernel, nor do I have
problems with kernel crashes/reboots. I've also tried running
recent Firefox on a PC with 512MB RAM and noticed that it performs
much worse than with 2GB RAM, slowing down to a crawl while loading
some websites, suggesting that it really does need more RAM in that
case.
I don't use web browsers to play video. If you're streaming super
high resolution video through your browser with the latest and
greatest compression algorithms, then it probably has the right
to chew up a lot of RAM.
What chews memory are *commercial* websites loaded with (deliberately)
buggy javaScript that cause javaScript engines to go into meltdown. How
that is handled is browser dependent.
Ublock Origin helps massively, but is not a complete answer.
What is a massive help at leats in Mint Mate is the System Monitor
widget that I keep in the task bar permanently displaying CPU, RAM and Network usage as teeny graphs.
It is very easy to see when memory is all grabbed by a process rather
than simply cache
And monitor how much gets released when you close a website page.
It may not be a memory leak but it's certainly a rogue program - >chrome/chromium in this case, though I've had similar and worse problems
with Firefox which seems to me more likely to have a genuine memory leak.
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-05-02 16:06, James Harris wrote:
Yes, I am (at least tentatively) blaming Linux but not for the problem
you think. I wouldn't expect Linux to prevent programs from gobbling up
memory but I would expect it to manage memory hogs more gracefully than
it does. IME Windows handles the same situation better - and that may be >>> down to the different designs of their paging systems.
Don't get me wrong. I much prefer Linux to Windows and have often seen
Windows get into a worse situation under different circumstances. But
for page management ISTM that the design of Linux's paging subsystem may >>> not be the best.
You can configure Linux to crash the application that is behaving badly
by grabbing all the memory. It is up to you, the boss.
The philosophy is not to nanny care for you. It does what you asked.
More memory? Yes sir. Till death does us part. Your orders will be obeyed. >>
:-)
I didn't know there was an option not to have it do that (via the
Out Of Memory Reaper). It seems the alternatives are to reboot or
risk the kernel crashing, so your description seems about right.
https://www.oracle.com/technical-resources/articles/it-infrastructure/dev-oom-killer.html
The OP has noted now that the process that consumes their RAM is
Chrome or Firefox. I've not seen a detailed description of why it
happens, but I've long noted that Firefox seems to expand its RAM
usage to the available space, but different from a memory leak in
that it usually leaves a certain amount free. I assume that this
in intended behaviour. I run current Firefox on a PC with 2GB RAM
and I don't have it getting killed by the kernel, nor do I have
problems with kernel crashes/reboots. I've also tried running
recent Firefox on a PC with 512MB RAM and noticed that it performs
much worse than with 2GB RAM, slowing down to a crawl while loading
some websites, suggesting that it really does need more RAM in that
case.
I don't use web browsers to play video.
If you're streaming super
high resolution video through your browser with the latest and
greatest compression algorithms, then it probably has the right
to chew up a lot of RAM.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 03/05/2024 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
I run current Firefox on a PC with 2GB RAMI use browsers to play videos. RAM usage is not massive. CPU usage is.
and I don't have it getting killed by the kernel, nor do I have
problems with kernel crashes/reboots. I've also tried running
recent Firefox on a PC with 512MB RAM and noticed that it performs
much worse than with 2GB RAM, slowing down to a crawl while loading
some websites, suggesting that it really does need more RAM in that
case.
I don't use web browsers to play video. If you're streaming super
high resolution video through your browser with the latest and
greatest compression algorithms, then it probably has the right
to chew up a lot of RAM.
Perhaps RAM usage isn't that great on the scale of systems with tens
of GB of RAM. Compared to 2GB I think it may be significant because
when I tried to transcode a 1920x1080 video in AV1 format to
lower-res MPEG4 on a VPS with 1GB RAM + 1GB swap space, ffmpeg
(v. 4) surprised me by running out of RAM. Of course it could be a
bug in that decoder, but not having tackled much AV1 video before I
concluded that high resolutions plus modern video codecs requires
lots of RAM.
What chews memory are *commercial* websites loaded with (deliberately)
buggy javaScript that cause javaScript engines to go into meltdown. How
that is handled is browser dependent.
Ublock Origin helps massively, but is not a complete answer.
What is a massive help at leats in Mint Mate is the System Monitor
widget that I keep in the task bar permanently displaying CPU, RAM and
Network usage as teeny graphs.
It is very easy to see when memory is all grabbed by a process rather
than simply cache
And monitor how much gets released when you close a website page.
There's also about:performance in Firefox. I do use NoScript with
all my browsing in Firefox.
On 03/05/2024 06:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
In short anti-linux trolling.
Nope. Posting to a discussion forum to have a discussion about a point
of interest.
On 2024-05-03 01:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
The OP has noted now that the process that consumes their RAM is
Chrome or Firefox. I've not seen a detailed description of why it
happens, but I've long noted that Firefox seems to expand its RAM
usage to the available space, but different from a memory leak in
that it usually leaves a certain amount free. I assume that this
in intended behaviour. I run current Firefox on a PC with 2GB RAM
and I don't have it getting killed by the kernel, nor do I have
problems with kernel crashes/reboots. I've also tried running
recent Firefox on a PC with 512MB RAM and noticed that it performs
much worse than with 2GB RAM, slowing down to a crawl while loading
some websites, suggesting that it really does need more RAM in that
case.
Firefox uses a lot of memory.
One problem is memory fragmentation. It reserves many chunks then
eventually frees many, but they may not being contiguous, so maybe they
can not be reused, so it requests more memory.
When I started using Linux, back in 1998, I did notice that Linux needed
more memory than Windows to work right.
I had to improve my hardware
because of that. My previous computer had 8 GB and it was not enough, it
was swapping. So now I have a machine with 64.
I don't use web browsers to play video.
No youtube? :-)
On 03/05/2024 08:45, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Transcoding is not playing
On 03/05/2024 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
I don't use web browsers to play video. If you're streaming superI use browsers to play videos. RAM usage is not massive. CPU usage is.
high resolution video through your browser with the latest and
greatest compression algorithms, then it probably has the right
to chew up a lot of RAM.
Perhaps RAM usage isn't that great on the scale of systems with tens
of GB of RAM. Compared to 2GB I think it may be significant because
when I tried to transcode a 1920x1080 video in AV1 format to
lower-res MPEG4 on a VPS with 1GB RAM + 1GB swap space, ffmpeg
(v. 4) surprised me by running out of RAM. Of course it could be a
bug in that decoder, but not having tackled much AV1 video before I
concluded that high resolutions plus modern video codecs requires
lots of RAM.
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-05-03 01:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
The OP has noted now that the process that consumes their RAM is
Chrome or Firefox. I've not seen a detailed description of why it
happens, but I've long noted that Firefox seems to expand its RAM
usage to the available space, but different from a memory leak in
that it usually leaves a certain amount free. I assume that this
in intended behaviour. I run current Firefox on a PC with 2GB RAM
and I don't have it getting killed by the kernel, nor do I have
problems with kernel crashes/reboots. I've also tried running
recent Firefox on a PC with 512MB RAM and noticed that it performs
much worse than with 2GB RAM, slowing down to a crawl while loading
some websites, suggesting that it really does need more RAM in that
case.
Firefox uses a lot of memory.
One problem is memory fragmentation. It reserves many chunks then
eventually frees many, but they may not being contiguous, so maybe they
can not be reused, so it requests more memory.
It seems to me like it looks at the available RAM (not including
swap space) and only works at freeing space when the free RAM
remaining gets to a certain size/percentage. Increading RAM because
one feels there isn't enough space free therefore isn't really a
solution because Firefox will eventually expand to fill that new
space too. Although if it tries to leave a minimum percentage free,
the size of that minimum would increase.
But it would be great to see an explanation of how it really works
from one of the Firefox developers (one can dream).
I wouldn't know what to do with 8GB (well I know some people like
to run lots of VMs, but that's too much to think about in my
opinion).
On 04/05/2024 01:13, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
I wouldn't know what to do with 8GB (well I know some people like
to run lots of VMs, but that's too much to think about in my
opinion).
Once you run a GUI and some modern python style code its amazing how
much ram crap apps can gobble up
I just upgraded from 8GB because the combination of 3GB of windows VM
plus a browser running a 3D printers webserver with embedded video, plus
a Python 3D slicer overwhelmed the machine and sent it into swap.
Firefox seems to spawn an infinite number of 'webkit' and 'isolated web company' children
Especially with necessary ad blockers installed
Thunderbird is over half a GB
Orca slicer is 400GB+
Plus two instances of a linux game I am playing takes *hard* usage to
over 8GB/ I.e before cached files etc.
Now these are all things I want to do *at the same time*. Edit in
windows VM, pass 3D files to the slicer, monitor print progress via the
web interface, and play a linux game to while away the minutes waiting
for the 3D printer to turn out yet another 'close, but no cigar' print
that needs re-editing. Or while reading the news^H^H^H^H propaganda, or Usenet, or getting email in.
All I can say is, thank Clapton Linux has a really good memory manager.
$ free -m
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 23909 7385 931 1044 15592
15090
Swap: 2047 0 2047
I can't control 3rd party apps, but I can control my machine's memory.
Up till buying a 3D printer 8GB was more than enough, but the constant
use of windows based 3D and 2D CAD programs plus the slicer and
firefoxes latest bloatery has taken it over the edge
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:[snip]
On 2024-05-03 01:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
I don't use web browsers to play video.
No youtube? :-)
Only with youtube-dl (yes I know there's also the yt-dlp fork). To
find videos there I also avoid their Javascript-filled website and
use Invidious as well as "site:youtube.com" in DuckDuckGo.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote at 09:48 this Saturday (GMT):
On 04/05/2024 01:13, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
I wouldn't know what to do with 8GB (well I know some people like
to run lots of VMs, but that's too much to think about in my
opinion).
Once you run a GUI and some modern python style code its amazing how
much ram crap apps can gobble up
I just upgraded from 8GB because the combination of 3GB of windows VM
plus a browser running a 3D printers webserver with embedded video, plus
a Python 3D slicer overwhelmed the machine and sent it into swap.
Firefox seems to spawn an infinite number of 'webkit' and 'isolated web
company' children
Especially with necessary ad blockers installed
Thunderbird is over half a GB
Orca slicer is 400GB+
Plus two instances of a linux game I am playing takes *hard* usage to
over 8GB/ I.e before cached files etc.
Now these are all things I want to do *at the same time*. Edit in
windows VM, pass 3D files to the slicer, monitor print progress via the
web interface, and play a linux game to while away the minutes waiting
for the 3D printer to turn out yet another 'close, but no cigar' print
that needs re-editing. Or while reading the news^H^H^H^H propaganda, or
Usenet, or getting email in.
All I can say is, thank Clapton Linux has a really good memory manager.
$ free -m
total used free shared buff/cache
available
Mem: 23909 7385 931 1044 15592
15090
Swap: 2047 0 2047
I can't control 3rd party apps, but I can control my machine's memory.
Up till buying a 3D printer 8GB was more than enough, but the constant
use of windows based 3D and 2D CAD programs plus the slicer and
firefoxes latest bloatery has taken it over the edge
Yeah, but what other JS-compatible browsers exist? Chromium is also bad
with memory..
On Wed, 1 May 2024, James Harris wrote:
Not a question, just an observation.
I say that Linux doesn't seem to handle memory well because my laptop
had 8GB RAM (which, frankly, Windows seems to find perfectly adequate
for a similar workload). Under Linux the RAM would fill up and then
swap space would be used. Then the machine would become largely
unresponsive - e.g. taking minutes to switch between windows.
So I upgraded the RAM. It now has three times as much (i.e. 24GB)! But
even so, RAM has still steadily filled up until reaching the full
24GB. What's more, it's now showing 4.8GB of swap space in use.
Sounds like some rouge application and not linux. I never had any ram problems with linux given 4, 8 and now 16 gb of ram and I run firefox
and xfce. Even ran gnome on 4 gb ram and no problems.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 67:41:51 |
| Calls: | 6,915 |
| Files: | 12,379 |
| Messages: | 5,431,813 |