8GB not enough on rMBP - need to replace

[yusukeaoki]

Can I ask... What are page outs? How do I watch to see if it ever goes over?

Applications that need access to data that is in memory call the data by page.
If an application calls a page and it is in the RAM, then it is a "page in" occurs. If an app calls for a page from memory, and that page is currently stored on the hard disk and has to be read back into the RAM, then a "Page Out" occurs.
A "Page-out" slows the operation of the system down because it has to read the data from a hard disk into RAM first, rather than reading straight from the RAM. Hard disks take about 300 times as long to transfer a page of data, which adds up to slow performance.

 

[swerve147]

To add to that, page outs to SSD aren't as bad as page outs to HDD, or so it's been claimed. I haven't had the pleasure of knowing for sure as I never experienced page outs normally (even when I had an 8GB rMBP).

You can't blame this high RAM usage on the Retina display clearly, nor are these needs humble. Hopefully people who come across this thread realize this and not just read the title.

 

[iVikD]

Why do you choose to have a ton of tabs open at one time? YOU are the issue, not the amount of ram.

I strongly disagree with this, if he paid a premium price for a powerful computer with a decent size of ram, it is reasonable to expect that it will hold whatever amount of tabs he decides to open on it.
Regardless, any browser should be able to handle plenty of tabs without eating so much memory and swapping out like it's doing. I side with the other posters who said the WebKit might be the issue; >50GB of page outs is nowhere near normal.

 

[maxosx]

Try restarting your mac every time it reaches 2GB of page outs.
Thats how I keep mine nice and fast.

This is excellent advice, not to mention the other advantages a restart offers.

 

[Brian Y]

What you felt was a placebo effect then.

My Late 2006 MBP still does ok and it has 2GB of RAM. I have 16GB on my desktop and I rarely go over 6GB unless I load up a VM.

8GB is fine for most people, I swear some of the things I see on this board when it comes to processor updates and ram are so asinine.

Depends what you do with them.

Take my iMac, for example. Started with a 2.7 i5 and 4GB RAM. Changed for 3.4 i7 and 32GB RAM. When virtualising, both upgrades make the world of difference, and for my uses, are worthwhile. If you were doing a light bit of Photoshop, I'd have kept the i5 and maybe gone to 8 or 16GB RAM.

 

[robvas]

Are you guys overcommitting the RAM on your virtual machines or what? I have virtualized entire networks for small companies in 10GB. Exchange, Terminal Service, File/Print (SBS 2003), 3-4 other application servers.

When I do VM's on my Mac I use a 512MB Linux VM for web/DB and then a 512MB (Windows XP) or 1GB (Windows 7) VM for Internet Explorer/Outlook testing.

 

[iVikD]

Are you guys overcommitting the RAM on your virtual machines or what? I have virtualized entire networks for small companies in 10GB. Exchange, Terminal Service, File/Print (SBS 2003), 3-4 other application servers.

When I do VM's on my Mac I use a 512MB Linux VM for web/DB and then a 512MB (Windows XP) or 1GB (Windows 7) VM for Internet Explorer/Outlook testing.

Well, you seem like an advanced user, so to speak, so you probably feel comfortable working with smaller amounts of memory and such. It could also be a matter of preference: Since I have 16GB on my MBP, I like to give my VMs tons of memory, even if they don't need it XD but it's mostly a "I do it because I can" kinda thing. The only time I've needed more than 4GB is when running mobile emulators inside a Windows VM, and even that is a bit over the top.

 

[Daniel L]

I don't know what you're doing with your rMBP but I use Webkit every day, don't reboot very often and I barely go over 4GB used. If I open Word, Powerpoint, Excel, and Photoshop, I'll get it to less than 5GB used.

 

[ppone]

I agree with OP 8GB on retina is not enough.

I have base 2.3 with 8 GB, retina seems to eat up more memory per process as compared to my 2.6 Ghz (late 2012) Mac Mini.

I found a work around, that involved changing the resolution to a non HiDPI resolution, so the software doesn't have to upscale and downscale, in order to get those extra pixels pushed to the display and have a nice crispy screen.

I used the app mentioned in this thread

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1544314/

I now am running resolution=1680x1050 non HiDPI. The system can easily handle that resolution.

My WindowServer process never gets above 200 MB and is averaging around 150 MB right now. Safari is eating up less memory as are other programs.

The downside to doing this is the screen is not as crisp as a HiDPI resolution but the benefits are almost no lags, and more free memory due to processes using less.

I can now change my resolution in terms of non HiDPI up to 3840x2400, but that is not necessary. 1680x1050 is great. The screen even at this low resolution is still better than a cMBP at the equivalent resolution.

Until Apple figures out or pushes hardware/software that can handle retina on a 15 inch without major drawbacks, this is what I will do. There is no need for me to sell my unit and purchase a new one just to upgrade memory, when that still will not solve the lags, and the rate of memory consumption per process.

 

[ppone]

@alexiszorba

Don't sell it yet, try the solution on this thread

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1544314/

If that solution doesn't work then I would worry about selling it.

 

[leman]

I will go for the new 15" rMBP 2.7/16/512. I don't say I absolutely need it, I say I will enjoy it.

And it will probably have performance issues as well, as everything so far points to a memory leak in a software you use. But its your time and money, so its up to you to decide.

P.S. I have 16GB RAM. My employer payed for the machine so I don't really care that much, but if it were my own I would have wished that I saved the money and got the 8GB model.

 

[Dronac]

To add to that, page outs to SSD aren't as bad as page outs to HDD, or so it's been claimed. I haven't had the pleasure of knowing for sure as I never experienced page outs normally (even when I had an 8GB rMBP).

You can't blame this high RAM usage on the Retina display clearly, nor are these needs humble. Hopefully people who come across this thread realize this and not just read the title.

I have the 16gb model and page out all the time, but then again I do a lot of MATLAB work and half my stuff needs to be offloaded to a 300 core cluster computer . Page outs indeed are almost unnoticeable when I'm doing normal web browsing while MATLAB eats my RAM for breakfast.

 

[ppone]

With a good SSD (Samsung 830 is good ) you won't notice the page outs that much. No Mechanical spinning and no noise. But if you having tons and tons of them, that will contribute to minor pauses and a general slowdown. 8GB on most non retina computers is more than good enough, but this case it is not even close. That is the issue. It is 100% due to driving the retina display at retina resolutions.

The Retina on default settings does consume memory at a higher rate for normal tasks. I completely understand OP situation. AT this point there is not much that can be done but workarounds like switching to a non retina resolution or switch the retina computer to non retina one.

I have the 16gb model and page out all the time, but then again I do a lot of MATLAB work and half my stuff needs to be offloaded to a 300 core cluster computer . Page outs indeed are almost unnoticeable when I'm doing normal web browsing while MATLAB eats my RAM for breakfast.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Are you guys overcommitting the RAM on your virtual machines or what? I have virtualized entire networks for small companies in 10GB. Exchange, Terminal Service, File/Print (SBS 2003), 3-4 other application servers.

When I do VM's on my Mac I use a 512MB Linux VM for web/DB and then a 512MB (Windows XP) or 1GB (Windows 7) VM for Internet Explorer/Outlook testing.

You're not really virtualizing OS's as much as you're virtualizing apps though. When I boot Windows 8 for development, I wouldn't imagine using less than 4gb - that's 2 for the 2 Windows Phone emulators, and another 2 for Visual Studio. Plus a gig for photoshop and a gig for OS X, and I've almost used to up 8gb of RAM with a single VM. Opening up a linux VM and Safari could easily max the 8gb of RAM.

 

[Valkyre]

Ι use C4D extensively, some after effects, PS and I "only" have 8gb of RAM.

And it more than enough.

People need to understand that 8 gb is pretty much more than enough for like 99% of users out there...

As for "future" proof, by the time 8 gb of RAM are not sufficient, the onther parts of your computer will be the bottleneck in terms of performance already, not the system's RAM.

I am a relatively power user (certainly not an extreme one) and 8GB is just perfect. Now if you are the kind of folk that needs multiple VMs and do heavy tasks on each one of them, yeah go for 16.

But for the rest 70% of users maxing out RAM? Well those 200$ are going to be sitting there doing nothing for you.

 

[abc123]

My experience is the RAM has always been the deciding factor when I eventually upgrade a laptop, I predict even more so now that the retina mbp isn't user serviceable for RAM.

Sure it is the other parts being out of date that make me more likely to upgrade the whole machine rather than spend less and only upgrade the ram, but I do feel like I'd have been happier for much longer with my current (07) mbp if I'd put more than 2GB in it right off the bat. At the time it seemed more than I needed but right now it is completely crippling the machine.

 

[Haiku214]

Guys, no matter how we explain to the OP that 8 GB ram is enough for him and that the webkit is the culprit, his mind is already set on getting a new machine.

Basically this post is just self justification for him to buy a new toy. Upgrade itch.

 

[glenthompson]

When I do VM's on my Mac I use a 512MB Linux VM for web/DB and then a 512MB (Windows XP) or 1GB (Windows 7) VM for Internet Explorer/Outlook testing.

When I have to run Windows, I usually loading Visual Studio and the Office suite so that small a VM is a problem. I have my set to 4gb and it's the only time I find 8gb to be close to insufficient. When I don't load a VM, I rarely exceed 5gb used.

And to think that I thought Firefox was a bit of a memory hog sometimes.

 

[johnnnw]

Applications that need access to data that is in memory call the data by page.
If an application calls a page and it is in the RAM, then it is a "page in" occurs. If an app calls for a page from memory, and that page is currently stored on the hard disk and has to be read back into the RAM, then a "Page Out" occurs.
A "Page-out" slows the operation of the system down because it has to read the data from a hard disk into RAM first, rather than reading straight from the RAM. Hard disks take about 300 times as long to transfer a page of data, which adds up to slow performance.

Thank you, very helpful. I'm going to watch it and restart when it gets over 2 or so like you recommend, sounds great.