I picked up a base 15in MBA a couple days ago and noticed last night it was using about 1.8gb of swap. Is that normal? Should I have upgraded to 16gb of RAM?
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.
Base 15in MBA: how much swap memory usage is too much?
- Thread starter helloapple1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It really depends on the OS and programs that currently running. This is my 8GB M2 Air, with Safari 2 tabs and separate Unite instance running Netflix (Monterey 12.6.9).
I even have memory swap on my 64gb Mac Studio. 1.8gb is nothing.
Swap amount alone is not the only factor to determine if RAM is enough, you also need to account for frequency of access both read and write. In fact the memory pressure perimeter is specifically designed to account for all these. Say you loaded 200 tabs in Chrome but 190 of them are left in the background untouched for months. They may consume 50GB of cached memory on disk, but the system knows you don't need them readily accessible, and will deem the memory pressure in the low side still.
Maybe 1-3gb on a long work day using Photoshop and Capture One.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
#5 for the win. Ideally, you have enough RAM that you never need swap. Very simply: SWAP is reading & writing to an SSD to help out when there is too little RAM. The SSD is acting like some slower, extra (sort of) RAM. I think of it more like a RAM buffer myself.
SSDs can only handle so many reads/writes before they wear out. So a general goal is to NOT use them for swaps at all... which requires one to have enough RAM that they don't need to do that.
In the not-too-distant past Apple shipped Macs with hybrid SSD + HDD drives. And if you look through threads, you can find MANY people with malfunctioning (not really ancient) Macs because the SSD slice of those has basically been worn out. Take that as a warning about what MIGHT eventually happen with too much SWAP activity.
MAYBE Apple Silicon SSD has enough SSD resilience and management to survive some kind of average SWAP usage estimate longer than an assumed useful life of the device? If so, maybe normal amounts of SWAP won't replicate what is going on with those old "Fusion" drive Macs? But if not, then Silicon Macs with too little RAM are basically "throw baby out with the bathwater" Macs because when the SSD conks, it takes all of the rest of the Mac with it.
So again, ideally, one gets enough RAM that they won't need to lean on much SWAP. Minimal RAM will yield more SWAP. Whether that becomes a problem during the useful lifetime of the device is to be determined in the future. Perhaps minimal spec Mac buyers are the next Fusion drive Mac people, posting problems with their early Silicon Macs because they've SWAPped their SSD to death. OR, maybe something is different and SWAP is unlikely to be the cause of much trouble in this way. We probably won't have much of a sense of this until about 2025+, when first gen Silicon Macs start getting into the 4+ year old window and such posts either start popping... or don't.
If I'm a silicon buyer, I buy more RAM up front. By the time we KNOW how this will play out, everyone's Apple Care will be expired, you probably will STILL not be able to replace exhausted SSD, and it will all be "tough luck: buy a replacement Mac and don't buy minimal RAM this time."
SSDs can only handle so many reads/writes before they wear out. So a general goal is to NOT use them for swaps at all... which requires one to have enough RAM that they don't need to do that.
In the not-too-distant past Apple shipped Macs with hybrid SSD + HDD drives. And if you look through threads, you can find MANY people with malfunctioning (not really ancient) Macs because the SSD slice of those has basically been worn out. Take that as a warning about what MIGHT eventually happen with too much SWAP activity.
MAYBE Apple Silicon SSD has enough SSD resilience and management to survive some kind of average SWAP usage estimate longer than an assumed useful life of the device? If so, maybe normal amounts of SWAP won't replicate what is going on with those old "Fusion" drive Macs? But if not, then Silicon Macs with too little RAM are basically "throw baby out with the bathwater" Macs because when the SSD conks, it takes all of the rest of the Mac with it.
So again, ideally, one gets enough RAM that they won't need to lean on much SWAP. Minimal RAM will yield more SWAP. Whether that becomes a problem during the useful lifetime of the device is to be determined in the future. Perhaps minimal spec Mac buyers are the next Fusion drive Mac people, posting problems with their early Silicon Macs because they've SWAPped their SSD to death. OR, maybe something is different and SWAP is unlikely to be the cause of much trouble in this way. We probably won't have much of a sense of this until about 2025+, when first gen Silicon Macs start getting into the 4+ year old window and such posts either start popping... or don't.
If I'm a silicon buyer, I buy more RAM up front. By the time we KNOW how this will play out, everyone's Apple Care will be expired, you probably will STILL not be able to replace exhausted SSD, and it will all be "tough luck: buy a replacement Mac and don't buy minimal RAM this time."
Last edited:
“Exhausted SSD“ is an urban myth. My eight year old MacBook Air….with only 4gigs ram works fine these many years later (minus dead battery). Of course, I’ve upgraded to a 15air; the other guy is now retired.
I think the real question to ask is: is the MacBook slowing down doing something you want to do? You seeing beachballs? Is the Mac slowing down when you switch apps? If not, just keep using it and let it handle RAM and swap on its own. Modern Macs are very good with this stuff.
Or, alternately, if you want to make using your Mac a hobby, open up Activity Monitor, check your "memory pressure" constantly and have at it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Tell this to the people with fusion drive Macs, basically conking because the SSD portion in that fusion is failing. See if they will confirm how their very tangible problem is only a myth.
There is abundant information online about this topic. The general theme is "you probably don't have to worry because modern SSDs are better than older SSDs" (vs. life of the device). However, all such articles often continue with recommendations to monitor SSD health and the implication of replacing the SSD when the monitoring implies one should. In other words, none say SSDs are for life (of device) but only that they MAY last that long (mostly revolving around variables like number of writes, heat, etc)... and be ready to replace it if yours fails.
Silicon Macs offer no such replacement option. So they better not justify worry... because monitoring for when one should replace a Silicon SSD leads to no good outcome unless buying an entirely new Mac due to this one part conking is considered a great option.
If you are aware of any objective information that basically says SSDs won't be exhausted by heavy SWAP usage, I'd love to read the science. I haven't seen any such information other than what appears to be biased PR spin seemingly more focused on selling product vs. sharing objective opinion.
For all my fellow Silicon Mac buyers leaning on SWAP, I'll certainly hope this issue is a myth. Else, we're only a few years from first-gen Silicon buyers discovering that they did indeed need more RAM back when they purchased it... with heightened pain in no replacement/repair options and just having to lay out the cash to buy an entirely new Mac.
Last edited:
Eh. I think the Fusion Drive is a special case. Data is *constantly* being shuffled on and off the SSD portion to keep the most active stuff on there. I say this as someone whose Fusion Drive SSD failed on my 2014 iMac 5K after maybe 5 years of use.
By contrast, my M1 MacBook Air, 8GB RAM is sitting at 85% SSD cycles left according to DriveDx. That's after 2+ years of pretty frequent use, with gobs of disk swap activity at times because of a high workload. At this rate I would expect this thing could run for 10 years? That works for me.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Yes, again, I didn't proclaim doom or no worries with any certainty- just offering the possibilities and a historical example of what a lot of writes to SSD can do to a Mac. OP is asking a question in the title that none of us can absolutely answer. However, my answer is to try to minimize it if possible by letting the computer do the memory work in actual RAM vs. leaning on SWAP due to the choice of too little RAM.
The only way we really know how SWAP on minimum specs plays out is in a few years when Silicon Mac owners may experience no consequence from lots of SWAP or may be experiencing something like you did with that 2014 iMac. The easy thing to write would be probably something in between... EXCEPT anything other than "no problem" is not good for those Mac owners. When the SSD fails, the whole Mac is basically junked.
If I'm OP or I'm any new Mac buyer, I up the RAM vs. hoping SWAP will be OK. The latter may very well be fine but we only find out in the hardest- or perhaps easiest- way a few years from now.
The only way we really know how SWAP on minimum specs plays out is in a few years when Silicon Mac owners may experience no consequence from lots of SWAP or may be experiencing something like you did with that 2014 iMac. The easy thing to write would be probably something in between... EXCEPT anything other than "no problem" is not good for those Mac owners. When the SSD fails, the whole Mac is basically junked.
If I'm OP or I'm any new Mac buyer, I up the RAM vs. hoping SWAP will be OK. The latter may very well be fine but we only find out in the hardest- or perhaps easiest- way a few years from now.
Last edited:
I don't think that's much. As another poster mentioned about their Mac Studio, I have a 14-inch M1 Max with 32GB of RAM and at the end of the day I have 2-3GB of swap while running some VMs and office apps.
I'm of the belief that if you are second guessing if you should upgrade the RAM, then just go ahead and get the 16GB (or more) if you can afford it.
I had a base M1 Air for a while and I was amazed how well it handled things. It wasn't until I started to need to run VMs while on the go (it was my travel machine) that I sold it and got a refurb M1 Air from Apple in the 16/256 config. If I didn't need to run VMs, I would have been fine with the 8GB.
That's oranges. We're talking apples.
Theoretically I would agree. But if it were a major problem on Macs then there would be many reports of such failures of SSD (not fusion) drives. As I stated I have only seen one. If you can reference documented cases of Mac Pure SSDS failing certainly interested in hearing it. Theoretically planes can crash. In actuality they rarely do.
Added: That's not to say that if your memory usage is going into the yellow or red areas that you shouldn't ignore it. No reason to tempt fate.
Last edited:
When I used the M1 Air with 8gb ram, I typically had 5-6 gb of swap with yellow memory pressure. Now I have the 15 Air with 24gb ram, no swap with green.
I would interpret constant yellow pressure as a sign that I need more ram.
I would interpret constant yellow pressure as a sign that I need more ram.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Too soon for SWAP issues to show themselves with much scale just yet. The poster to which I responded shared that it took his Mac FIVE years before he had the SSD issue. No Silicon Macs have been owned for 5 years yet. We only get to find out if this is an actual issue or not- and the scale of it- in the future... when enough SWAPping has been done to manifest as an issue or not.
It may not be an issue at all. Or it may be a big issue. Too soon to tell.
However, if I'm buying a Silicon Mac, I just up the RAM so that I minimize SWAP. Then, I don't have to ask the question that kicked off this thread... or even worry much about it.
OPs question can't be answered with any confidence one way or the other in 2023. Only time will actually tell. However, OP and anyone else buying Silicon Macs can proactively mitigate any such worry by taking a simple- albeit EXPENSIVE- action at time of purchase. If SWAP turns out to be no issue, they will have enjoyed additional FASTER (than SWAP) RAM for all those years. If SWAP turns out to be an issue, it likely WON'T be one for them.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You've been around here long enough to know the answer to that one. If one went to the trouble to gather a mountain of very tangible evidence to make a case against SWAP in Silicon based on PCs or even Intel-based Macs, what would Apple Fans say: "But Apple Silicon/Apple SSD is different" with pokes at "cheap PC SSDs", "weaker SSD SWAP management in Windows" and 3-10 other zingers whether true or false or provable. The evidence itself would be questioned with conspiracies that the tests were run with the outcome in mind to undermine Apple. Apple cannot be wrong about anything, so anything that implies they are must be wrong itself.
Intel Macs generally have upgradable RAM for cheap. Those believing they need more RAM can much more easily buy RAM for relatively little cost vs. gambling on whether SWAPs will be an issue. And for those who DO gamble on SWAP know that should they wear out their SSD, they can replace it in most Intel Macs for what will be a relatively cheap price in the future (unlike Silicon Mac buyers with no replacement options short of buying a whole new Mac). So even the SWAP gamblers can proceed with solid backup plan confidence if they have an Intel Mac.
But how about SWAP stress testing a Silicon Mac now by setting some up to pounding X years of SWAP use as quickly as possible so we can know if this is going to be an issue or not in the present? See the dynamics of something like Geekbench tests where they are deemed accurate and evangelized when Apple wins some measure but need to be recoded and/or are no longer relevant when Apple comes in second or below. Or see the reaction to a poor rating by iFixit in which fans will ridicule the poor grade by arguing against the ability to repair their own stuff. Or see how Consumer Reports is absolutely right and evangelized when they crown something from Apple as "best" but compromised/wrong/antiquated when they crown something from Apple second or lower.
In other words (and just making up this scenario to make a point), somebody runs the stress test and it shows that normal use of SWAP will in fact be 9X% likely to wear out a Silicon Mac in an unacceptable amount of time. Since such test results could impact revenue in the present, Apple would likely question the testing parameters and the fans would run with every point of contention Apple offers... before then making up their own: "Oh tester is probably a PC shill", "analysis paid for by the PC industry", "99.9% of Mac users would not use SWAP as they did in that test", "I've been using minimal specs of Apple tech for 4X years and never had a problem" (so no one else could have problems either), etc.
The same could have been done when Fusion drives were new. I even recall a few people speculating about the negative potential of heavily using the SSD portion of them possibly wearing out before the useful life of those Macs was realized. What happened at the time? Such speculation was shot down as trolling, conspiracy against Apple, etc. And then later as those SSD slice failures proved to be the case with Fusion, denial, redirection to other possibilities before finally SOME acceptance that maybe the Apple Fusion drive was not one of Apple's finest innovations... but only SOME acceptance. See also: Butterfly keyboards. "...probably cheap Chinese chargers/cables." "You're holding it wrong." "That's not a notch, it's more screen R.E. to the left & right" Etc.
So, as offered, this is a wait & see issue or non-issue. If it turns out to be some variation of Fusion 2, it seems likely the best we would ever get out of Apple is "affecting a small number of users" only if pressed there by some kind of class action scenario in which there was real potential for some kind of expensive mass recall & replace. Without Apple admitting to something, fans would defend/redirect to the very end even as their own Silicon Mac fails from SWAP while typing defense & redirects to fellow consumers posts about SWAP issues.
I don't take a strong position on this topic myself. If it's MY money being spent, my gut guess is to proactively head this one off by buying more RAM up front to minimize SWAP. Whether that is wise or foolishly wasting money because SWAP will not become a problem until beyond the useful life of Silicon Macs is unknown... so far. What I do know for sure about this topic though: by the time this outcome is known, the defense/redirect machine will be beyond ready if needed.
Fellow consumer wanting to buy a new Silicon Mac and reading this thread: if you are worried about this topic, "think different" (for yourself) and pay the hefty premium for more RAM. If:
Intel Macs generally have upgradable RAM for cheap. Those believing they need more RAM can much more easily buy RAM for relatively little cost vs. gambling on whether SWAPs will be an issue. And for those who DO gamble on SWAP know that should they wear out their SSD, they can replace it in most Intel Macs for what will be a relatively cheap price in the future (unlike Silicon Mac buyers with no replacement options short of buying a whole new Mac). So even the SWAP gamblers can proceed with solid backup plan confidence if they have an Intel Mac.
But how about SWAP stress testing a Silicon Mac now by setting some up to pounding X years of SWAP use as quickly as possible so we can know if this is going to be an issue or not in the present? See the dynamics of something like Geekbench tests where they are deemed accurate and evangelized when Apple wins some measure but need to be recoded and/or are no longer relevant when Apple comes in second or below. Or see the reaction to a poor rating by iFixit in which fans will ridicule the poor grade by arguing against the ability to repair their own stuff. Or see how Consumer Reports is absolutely right and evangelized when they crown something from Apple as "best" but compromised/wrong/antiquated when they crown something from Apple second or lower.
In other words (and just making up this scenario to make a point), somebody runs the stress test and it shows that normal use of SWAP will in fact be 9X% likely to wear out a Silicon Mac in an unacceptable amount of time. Since such test results could impact revenue in the present, Apple would likely question the testing parameters and the fans would run with every point of contention Apple offers... before then making up their own: "Oh tester is probably a PC shill", "analysis paid for by the PC industry", "99.9% of Mac users would not use SWAP as they did in that test", "I've been using minimal specs of Apple tech for 4X years and never had a problem" (so no one else could have problems either), etc.
The same could have been done when Fusion drives were new. I even recall a few people speculating about the negative potential of heavily using the SSD portion of them possibly wearing out before the useful life of those Macs was realized. What happened at the time? Such speculation was shot down as trolling, conspiracy against Apple, etc. And then later as those SSD slice failures proved to be the case with Fusion, denial, redirection to other possibilities before finally SOME acceptance that maybe the Apple Fusion drive was not one of Apple's finest innovations... but only SOME acceptance. See also: Butterfly keyboards. "...probably cheap Chinese chargers/cables." "You're holding it wrong." "That's not a notch, it's more screen R.E. to the left & right" Etc.
So, as offered, this is a wait & see issue or non-issue. If it turns out to be some variation of Fusion 2, it seems likely the best we would ever get out of Apple is "affecting a small number of users" only if pressed there by some kind of class action scenario in which there was real potential for some kind of expensive mass recall & replace. Without Apple admitting to something, fans would defend/redirect to the very end even as their own Silicon Mac fails from SWAP while typing defense & redirects to fellow consumers posts about SWAP issues.
I don't take a strong position on this topic myself. If it's MY money being spent, my gut guess is to proactively head this one off by buying more RAM up front to minimize SWAP. Whether that is wise or foolishly wasting money because SWAP will not become a problem until beyond the useful life of Silicon Macs is unknown... so far. What I do know for sure about this topic though: by the time this outcome is known, the defense/redirect machine will be beyond ready if needed.
Fellow consumer wanting to buy a new Silicon Mac and reading this thread: if you are worried about this topic, "think different" (for yourself) and pay the hefty premium for more RAM. If:
- the bulk of memory needs are done in RAM, you near fully eliminate any potential of SWAP issues later.
- you gamble on cheapest, don't be surprised if there's some unexpected negatives in taking that added gamble.
- this turns out to be no issue at all and you purchased more RAM, you had years of faster processing in that RAM than those who leaned on SWAP.
Last edited:
Quit activity monitor and stop looking at memory pressure and swap. Use your machine normally and see if it slows or becomes unresponsive. If it does, then you need more RAM. My bet is that it will feel just fine for most compute tasks.
Memory pressure and swap make people really concerned about lack of RAM when their Mac is actually running just fine.
As for SSD wear, I’m sure it has happened to someone but in 15-years of using them, I have never seen an SSD fail. And I’ve certainly never worn one out.
Lastly, if $200 isn’t going to kill you and you are within the return window just upgrade. Worry about this stuff will detract from your enjoyment of the laptop. It will mostly be a waste of money, but you will sleep better given that it’s already worrying you.
SSDs do wear. When SSDs first appeared wear was a very real concern. I used one to failure, I think it took 6 years of fairly significant use. Failure was quick, as in working one day, nothing the next. I have had the same thing happen to spinning rust.
The SSDs of today still wear but a lot has been learned. Both in firmware and the physical devices themselves. A SSD in one of my computers (Windows) has been installed four years and is down to 86% life left. That means that 14% of the spare cells have been put into use due to other cells dying. I fully expect another six years of use. By that time I should be replacing the computer.
I expect my M2 Air to last 10 years without issue. I will have replace the machine long before that 10 year boundary.
In short, I don't worry about SSD wear.
Thanks. Just to be clear, I meant I got my first SSD in ~2008 (about 15-years ago) not that I have I had an SSD last 15-years!
The concern about SSD wear seems to point to risk of premature failure. So the question is, "What sort of life should we expect from these these things?" I think that at least 3-5-years of trouble-free use is reasonable, and 5-10 years with some risk of issues here and there should be ok too. Over 10-years, well, nice if you can achieve it, but I think tech will have moved on enough for you to reasonably expect to get something newer.
Based on your experience above I think that even with all the concerns about swap and SSD wear on 8GB, folks should easily get past 5-years before even a hint of an issue in most NORMAL computing situations. If you're a heavy Photoshopper or Video Editor moving and working multi-gig files on a daily basis, then may be the 8GB machine isn't for you (but I suspect you already know that). If, like most MacBook Air users, you spend your life on email, web, family photos/videos, MS Office, Zoom/Teams etc. I just wouldn't lose sleep over SSD wear on an 8GB machine.
Aren't the fusion drive SSDs also tiny, like 25GB IIRC? A smaller SSD will wear out much quicker than a larger one, and the smallest SSDs in M series MacBooks are an order of magnitude bigger.
Not sure how it is relevant. We are just talking about their SSD's wearing out regardless of whether they added additional memory. There are Intel Macs out there with SSDs and I haven't read of any (non-fusion) failures.
what system?
Just to cut this discussion short my post was prompted by all the posts (there are hundreds) of people worried about their SSDs. It is unnecessary worrying. ln almost all cases they won't have problems. It is sensible to configure your system memory to be large enough to keep out of the orange and red zones.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The relevancy goes back to the topic of the post. OP is concerned about the potential impact of SWAP on a new Silicon Mac. Nobody can really know for sure about SWAP on Silicon Macs until enough time passes for the impact to show up or not. Any reference to other SSDs can get undermined by claims that "Silicon is different" and/or "SWAP on Silicon is different."
PC owners could buy without concern because if an equivalent SWAP setup for them eventually killed the drive, they could simply replace the exhausted SSD. Silicon Mac owners don't have that option. If SWAP turns out to exhaust the drive, it's replace the whole computer.
Relative to Intel Macs, the proposition of taking minimum RAM is different too. In general, Intel Macs offer ways to upgrade RAM for much cheaper pricing than Silicon Macs. So any potential buyer- like OP- concerned about this scenario could simply buy more RAM for relatively little money.
Because Apple has set themselves up as the ONLY source of RAM and are pricing it sky high as a result, consumers like OP are weighing the gamble of buying minimal RAM and leaning on SWAP vs. buying more RAM to avoid much SWAP. Since we can't know the outcome of this particular scenario, some- like OP- are concerned about the impact of Silicon SWAP over time.
IMO: the best option is to pay up for added RAM. If SWAP is a non-issue, this buyer would have enjoyed faster-than-SWAP RAM for the life of the device. If SWAP turns out to be an issue, this buyer proactively nullifies it.
There's no attack on Apple here: I'm not saying don't buy Mac and I am suggesting buyers give Apple more profitable revenue by buying additional RAM. It's all po$itive for Apple Inc.
PC owners could buy without concern because if an equivalent SWAP setup for them eventually killed the drive, they could simply replace the exhausted SSD. Silicon Mac owners don't have that option. If SWAP turns out to exhaust the drive, it's replace the whole computer.
Relative to Intel Macs, the proposition of taking minimum RAM is different too. In general, Intel Macs offer ways to upgrade RAM for much cheaper pricing than Silicon Macs. So any potential buyer- like OP- concerned about this scenario could simply buy more RAM for relatively little money.
Because Apple has set themselves up as the ONLY source of RAM and are pricing it sky high as a result, consumers like OP are weighing the gamble of buying minimal RAM and leaning on SWAP vs. buying more RAM to avoid much SWAP. Since we can't know the outcome of this particular scenario, some- like OP- are concerned about the impact of Silicon SWAP over time.
IMO: the best option is to pay up for added RAM. If SWAP is a non-issue, this buyer would have enjoyed faster-than-SWAP RAM for the life of the device. If SWAP turns out to be an issue, this buyer proactively nullifies it.
There's no attack on Apple here: I'm not saying don't buy Mac and I am suggesting buyers give Apple more profitable revenue by buying additional RAM. It's all po$itive for Apple Inc.
Last edited: