#Michael Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 So I have been honestly using ubuntu 8 for the better part of the weekend and I honestly like it. I have it split into a couple of workspaces just for kicks to keep everything separate. With compiz running in all its glory, multiple programs running in each workspace (including ff3 having 10 tabs open), customs themes, etc... And according to system monitor my memory usage is around 500 mb. So why is it that ubuntu can do all of this with only 500 mb and yet vista needs almost 1.5 gb of memory to run? It's not that I am complaining or bashing or anything like that. I am a true windows fan and I like vista. I just don't understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MR_Candyman Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slimy Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Believe it or not, using more memory is a good thing (to an extent of course). Having free memory lying around is a waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foub Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Believe it or not, using more memory is a good thing (to an extent of course). Having free memory lying around is a waste. But using inefficiently is just as bad as in leaking it as Windows does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyro Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 a SUV can carry same people and a Indian NANO can carry same people on Same road but both with have different efficiency and will use different amount of oil consumption . cause of the design :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos mage Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Boy that was the most useless analogy I've seen in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted May 5, 2008 Veteran Share Posted May 5, 2008 But using inefficiently is just as bad as in leaking it as Windows does. inefficient memory usage would be shuffling everything into the page file and back out. The most efficient use of memory is to store everything in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foub Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 inefficient memory usage would be shuffling everything into the page file and back out.The most efficient use of memory is to store everything in it. And not by way of using it up through leaks.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted May 5, 2008 Veteran Share Posted May 5, 2008 In amongst the anecdotal evidence of "personal experiences", and the biased viewpoints from both camps, I think that you can look at how things are structured differently between the two platforms. But, before I give my point of view, let me just say that memory management is more complex of a subject than what this thread seems to be about: overall "feel" of resource usage (not just memory, but perceived performance by the user). And, for this, we might need to be more specific in our statements. In my experience, Ubuntu 8.04 is more sluggish than XP on the mid end computers I have used it on at home. However, Vista seems more sluggish on same level PCs (the PC I have Vista experience on is my son's with 512MB RAM with Home Basic). Purely anecdotal and subjective. But it is my personal opinion based on the specific hardware I have used these on. But "Ubuntu" isn't the only horse in the Linux race, and distros like Arch claim to be better optimized (a claim that I cannot validate or deny, since I have no experience with it). The user-customizable configurability that allows different distros to spring to life is because Linux is generally set up as a very modular and scalable OS. Replace Gnome with XFCE. Or with IceWM. Or Openbox. Select only the apps and packages you want. It is designed to work that way. And this gives "Linux" (whatever flavor you please) the ability to scale down to work well on low end equipment (EeePC, XO, Zaurus). And if you can scale down to lower hardware easily, it isn't hard to imagine making it run well on other mid/high end hardware. Is Linux magically "better" than Windows at running? By all means, the answer is no! CPU instructions are CPU instructions. And any small differences in task scheduling optimizations aren't really measurable by an end user, I don't believe. I personally believe that the power in Linux is getting it the way you want, with just what you want. And, by coincidence, I found this blog entry on O'Reilly.net that is on a similar topic, and is likewise analytical and skeptical of any claims that "X is better than Y", especially when focusing on an experiment with very limited testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#Michael Posted May 5, 2008 Author Share Posted May 5, 2008 All interesting points, I will have to continue playing and using ubuntu and see how it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted May 7, 2008 Veteran Share Posted May 7, 2008 And not by way of using it up through leaks.... Well we're never going to fully get rid of leaks. and Firefox doesn't have that many (half the "memory leaks" aren't memory leaks, they just get called that by people who seemingly don't know what memory leaks are) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrA Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Believe it or not, using more memory is a good thing (to an extent of course). Having free memory lying around is a waste. Yup. I look at linux and I regularly see 99% RAM usage, and I have 4GiB of RAM. It doesn't bother me. I'm happy that my RAM, that I paid good money for, is going to good use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcguy87 Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 inefficient memory usage would be shuffling everything into the page file and back out.The most efficient use of memory is to store everything in it. I must say, my fedora installation never creeps over 300mb of use, even while running a web browser, a music player, talking on pidgin, and having bluefish open. This includes full compiz visualization effects turned on, four virtual desktops. And my page file only has 4 kb used. So it's definitely not swapping data into the page file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsupersonic Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Yup. I look at linux and I regularly see 99% RAM usage, and I have 4GiB of RAM. It doesn't bother me. I'm happy that my RAM, that I paid good money for, is going to good use.99% USAGE? :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted May 15, 2008 Veteran Share Posted May 15, 2008 99% USAGE? :blink: I agree. Sounds incredibly high. I am running 4 different boinc projects, seeding 12 CDs/DVDs on torrent, plus the normal apps open (including Firefox), and am only at 22% RAM usage (4GB installed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 I've never had linux even touch my swap even with 1 gb of ram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrA Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 (edited) 99% USAGE? :blink: Yup, doesn't bother me. It would be nice if it wen to 100, but I guess Linux keeps a small buffer zone just in case. Only on my desktop where I'm regularly moving around large files. My laptop stands at 1.8GB out of 4GiB, but it's working set is much smaller than my desktop which is also on for longer than my laptop (I constantly reboot between OSX and Ubuntu). EDIT: Here we go, 99% usage: top - 17:55:56 up 4:48, 5 users, load average: 0.97, 1.28, 0.62 Tasks: 129 total, 1 running, 128 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 9.8%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 88.8%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 4033840k total, 3997412k used, 36428k free, 29624k buffers Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 3076124k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 6172 amistry 20 0 692m 195m 25m S 14 5.0 6:46.71 firefox 9093 root 20 0 329m 65m 30m S 0 1.7 0:06.32 wireshark 6184 amistry 20 0 329m 65m 13m S 0 1.7 0:01.93 evince 5701 root 20 0 906m 60m 13m S 3 1.5 7:49.43 Xorg 6165 amistry 20 0 438m 41m 21m S 0 1.1 0:03.38 nautilus 6141 amistry 20 0 268m 28m 9680 S 0 0.7 0:02.67 gnome-settings- 6166 amistry 20 0 355m 28m 16m S 0 0.7 0:13.07 gnome-panel 6179 amistry 20 0 279m 26m 12m S 0 0.7 0:10.42 gnome-terminal 6173 amistry 20 0 234m 19m 11m S 0 0.5 0:00.74 gvim 6183 amistry 20 0 234m 19m 11m S 0 0.5 0:00.72 gvim 6190 amistry 20 0 204m 18m 9948 S 0 0.5 0:00.20 fusion-icon 6392 amistry 20 0 257m 17m 11m S 0 0.5 0:00.24 mixer_applet2 6327 amistry 20 0 234m 16m 9.9m S 2 0.4 0:38.78 sensors-applet 6202 amistry 20 0 189m 16m 8036 S 0 0.4 0:00.54 python 6170 amistry 20 0 228m 15m 10m S 0 0.4 0:00.66 update-notifier I never said anything about RAM in use by programs. Edited May 15, 2008 by MrA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harreh Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 tl;snipped You really make me want to install a Linux distro now, you do this a lot. But I know it'd be a complete waste of time because I game far too much, and don't like change at all. There isn't an issue of compatability-I've got a LiveCD (It's there incase my PC died and I just need to boot into something) and it runs very well. But I've never understood what a memory leak is, and why they occur. Could someone explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vivicidal- Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 How ever much I run, I never have more than 300MB of RAM used by Ubuntu. Makes me wonder why I have 2GB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrA Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 But I've never understood what a memory leak is, and why they occur. Could someone explain? A memory leak is when you allocate memory in a program, but the program doesn't free it. The memory can only be reclaimed by killing the program, in which case the OS will release the memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Yup, doesn't bother me.... You haven't got a swap file? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted May 15, 2008 Veteran Share Posted May 15, 2008 ...EDIT: Here we go, 99% usage: top - 17:55:56 up 4:48, 5 users, load average: 0.97, 1.28, 0.62 <snip> I never said anything about RAM in use by programs. The RAM usage I posted at 22% wasn't just "programs", either. But I did a quick "top" here as well, and think I can see part of the difference:top - 17:29:12 up 43 min, 2 users, load average: 0.43, 1.07, 1.32 Tasks: 116 total, 1 running, 115 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 5.4%us, 2.6%sy, 57.3%ni, 34.5%id, 0.2%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 3631848k total, 892152k used, 2739696k free, 26756k buffers Swap: 554232k total, 0k used, 554232k free, 532368k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 24357 boinc 39 19 63408 59m 1420 S 63 1.7 1:34.80 einstein_S5R3_4 6372 boinc 39 19 277m 74m 1028 S 50 2.1 22:56.36 wcg_dddt_autodo 5895 root 20 0 320m 31m 6260 S 6 0.9 2:01.59 Xorg 6701 mark 20 0 48564 20m 8224 S 3 0.6 1:24.16 transmission 6731 mark 20 0 185m 61m 20m S 2 1.7 1:24.95 firefox 1491 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 1 0.0 0:00.52 ata/0 1 root 20 0 2844 1688 544 S 0 0.0 0:01.08 init 2 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 kthreadd 3 root RT -5 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.02 migration/0 4 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.12 ksoftirqd/0 5 root RT -5 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 watchdog/0 6 root RT -5 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.02 migration/1 7 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.12 ksoftirqd/1 8 root RT -5 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 watchdog/1 9 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.12 events/0 Looks like you are running full Gnome, while I have fluxbox. Still, 99% seems sky-high. You really make me want to install a Linux distro now, you do this a lot.... Sorry. :p Completely unintentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrA Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 You haven't got a swap file? Nope. Why bother? I have 4GiB of RAM and I've never gonna use it all up with programs. Even if I accidentally have a memory leak in a program I write, it'll won't spill. The RAM usage I posted at 22% wasn't just "programs", either. But I did a quick "top" here as well, and think I can see part of the difference:top - 17:29:12 up 43 min, 2 users, load average: 0.43, 1.07, 1.32 Tasks: 116 total, 1 running, 115 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 5.4%us, 2.6%sy, 57.3%ni, 34.5%id, 0.2%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 3631848k total, 892152k used, 2739696k free, 26756k buffers Swap: 554232k total, 0k used, 554232k free, 532368k cached snip Looks like you are running full Gnome, while I have fluxbox. Still, 99% seems sky-high. While mine looks sky-high to you, yours look unusually low to me. I guess it's a matter of perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsupersonic Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Oh, so you're saying you have 4GB of RAM and that Ubuntu can address all 4GB of RAM. I think we understood it as Ubuntu is depleting all your memory, as in programs & OS are occupying all 4GB of RAM. That would be nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 inefficient memory usage would be shuffling everything into the page file and back out.The most efficient use of memory is to store everything in it. that isn't efficient, that's stupid. a program should only use the amount of ram it needs to I agree. Sounds incredibly high.I am running 4 different boinc projects, seeding 12 CDs/DVDs on torrent, plus the normal apps open (including Firefox), and am only at 22% RAM usage (4GB installed). i'd say most of his ram of usage is actually the cache, my server runs at 99% "used" ram of which 50-60% is just the cache but gets lumped in with the used amount (though some apps/stats things will remove the cached amount from actual usage) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts