Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
32GB Memory and Swap Used
- Thread starter MacDaddyPanda
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe that should be a hint that there are things that Apple pages intentionally that have no impact on performance at all given how ludicrously small that paged data seems to be for multiple users in this thread?
I agree with that probably being the case, though it's also possible it's an oversight as well. It could be some process that intentionally writes a couple tiny kilobytes somewhere and never used/wasted, but eventually Apple would catch on (and it is so small that it wouldn't really impact anybody anyway).
Believe me, I really want to believe that Apple is doing it on purpose and it's basically nothing. It would give me peace of mind. At least it's basically nothing either way.
Why is it doing it Because it's a normal part of the OS operating and is nothing to be concerned with:
To understand the specific reason why any particular paging activity occurred would require a much more in depth analysis of the memory system and what it was doing at the time it occurred, most likely requiring additional instrumentation which wasn't enabled / in use at the time the activity occurred.
Swap Used: The space used on your startup drive by macOS memory management. It's normal to see some activity here. As long as memory pressure is not in the red state, macOS has memory resources available.
How to use Activity Monitor on your Mac
How to use Activity Monitor on your Mac
To understand the specific reason why any particular paging activity occurred would require a much more in depth analysis of the memory system and what it was doing at the time it occurred, most likely requiring additional instrumentation which wasn't enabled / in use at the time the activity occurred.
You have clearly no idea what you are talking about.
You can easily test this for yourself. Shoot 64 GB worth of images with your DSLR, and start to import in Bridge or whatever. Keep an eye on the activity monitor while importing, and note the import speed.
Cache will build up continuosly, as the OS thinks it is wise to hold on to the RAW files in RAM. Once total memory hits installed RAM, the OS will start to ”compress” and swap, and you will see the import speed crawl to a halt. The OS will keep on prioritizing cache, and use more and more swap to keep it this way.
This is NOT normal. It is a design flaw.
Now start Photoshop and Illustrator to work with your images, and the situation will be absurd, as the OS will continue to retain the cache and shrink the available RAM for applications and documents further. All that RAM you installed is used to keep useless files in memory.
If swap is used, your RAM is too low. But even if you have a fair amount of RAM, Mac OS will not use it efficiently, but prefer to swap rather than get rid of stale cache. This never ever happens in Linux, which will ditch cache before using swap.
I agree, either Apple is doing something unannounced, or it is an unintended flaw. People who see the paging yet have plenty of memory, won't see it disappear by adding more RAM.
Someone literally quotes an Apple support page, and you tell them that they have no idea what they're talking about.
The forum gets funnier by the day. Just like IRL, it seems like the people who know the least are the ones most vocal about how everyone else is wrong and they know better than everyone else.
I kind of feel sorry for the folks that come here looking for advice and help... it would be a full time job to try and point out and correct all the bad advice given.
Here's some good and kindly advice for you... never just type into terminal what some random dude on the internet told you to without some understanding and verification. You can bork your computer with the terminal very easily if you don't know what you're doing. There are a lot of bad actors here (intentionally or not).
I'd be curious too, but what you saw is completely normal and not worth another moments thought.
Someone literally quotes an Apple support page, and you tell them that they have no idea what they're talking about.
The forum gets funnier by the day. Just like IRL, it seems like the people who know the least are the ones most vocal about how everyone else is wrong and they know better than everyone else.
I kind of feel sorry for the folks that come here looking for advice and help... it would be a full time job to try and point out and correct all the bad advice given.
Here's some good and kindly advice for you... never just type into terminal what some random dude on the internet told you to without some understanding and verification. You can bork your computer with the terminal very easily if you don't know what you're doing. There are a lot of bad actors here (intentionally or not).
I'd be curious too, but what you saw is completely normal and not worth another moments thought.
Copying and pasting something from Apple doesn't make you an expert on the topic. Also, what he pasted didn't explain what occurred.
I would like to note that you've been getting very vocal recently, maybe consider reflecting on your own advice instead of passive aggressively taking it out on a stranger
if it's normal why have I not seen any swap (0mb) since I installed 32GB of RAM?
(And why does everyone claiming that it's normal keep ignoring this)
(And why does everyone claiming that it's normal keep ignoring this)
Take it up with Apple, it was their information I quoted.
As for not knowing what I'm talking about I have a degree in computer programming and work in the computer field. I have a specific interest in operating system design and operation. I started many years ago with the following four books:
- Configuration and Capacity Planning for Solaris Servers - ISBN 0-13-349952-9
- Sun Performance and Tuning - ISBN 0-13-095249-4
- Windows Internals - ISBN 0-7356-1917-4
- Solaris Internals - ISBN 0-13-148209-2
I have extensive experience in any number of operating systems ranging from Apple DOS (i.e. the original Apple ][ DOS) to modern versions of Windows, Linux, and macOS. I have personally owned any number of computing systems including an AS/400.
I know any number of programming languages starting with 6502 assembly back in the day. In fact I still have the following book in my collection:
- Programming the 6502 - By Rodnay Zaks (I do not see an ISBN number on it)
If you feel my statement is in error then by all means point out the error. No, stating "mine doesn't show any swapping" doesn't demonstrate my statement is in error.
[doublepost=1547906893][/doublepost]
I didn't ignore it. I specifically stated:
To understand the specific reason why any particular paging activity occurred would require a much more in depth analysis of the memory system and what it was doing at the time it occurred, most likely requiring additional instrumentation which wasn't enabled / in use at the time the activity occurred.
The answer is: We won't know. I did a few quick searches to see if there's any published information on how macOS performs memory management and I didn't see anything that described how macOS performs memory management. Perhaps it's out there but I didn't see it in my five minutes of looking.
Nope. But they occur under very specific circumstances.
As does swap. And it's usually related to running out of physical memory
Now that we've established that something can exist despite any particular individual not having observed it how does your previous response disprove what I've written?Nope. But they occur under very specific circumstances.
As does swap. And it's usually related to running out of physical memory
With all that education, you still don't know that swapping to disk is orders of magnitude slower than using RAM?? And you think this is normal, just because Apple engineers think so? What does your education say? Go back to your textbooks and find out, and then post the result here.
How did you arrive at this erroneous conclusion?
I know it's normal because the developer of the software in question, Apple, states as much. PERIOD.
Apple is wrong, and therefore so are you. And it is not a new problem either: https://apple.stackexchange.com/que...mpressed-memory-when-really-needed-macos-10-1
Unbelievable! You expect us to believe some random people on Stack Exchange over the developer of the software in question?
So instead, you'd want us to believe some guy who just quotes Apple docs that doesn't answer the question. Do you even understand why the disk swapping is a concern? I'll take a developer discussion over Northern Light philosophy please.
Last edited by a moderator:
I read the stack exchange conversation and agree it is likely that Apple engineers could vastly improve this. I can tell my mini struggles in weird spots and I have huge swaps (only 8 gb ram). It worries me that if I upgrade to 32 that the additional memory will not be utilized well. I also purchased apple care because I worried that swap will strain the SSD and lessen its lifespan. I wish there were a 5 year apple care.
Something can be functioning as design but still be improved. The SE reference had nothing to demonstrate the information referenced in the Apple support article as being wrong.