freeing memory...

Discussion in 'Mac OS X Lion (10.7)' started by fisherking, Aug 16, 2011.

  1. fisherking macrumors 603

    fisherking

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    Location:
    ny somewhere
    #1
    do apps like this really help? or is it a panacea..

    memoryfreer

    am running lion on a macbook (late 2008) with 4gigs ram, just wondered if this would help (when using an app like Logic, for example)..
     
  2. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #2
    Might be more of a placebo than anything else. Run Logic in 64-bit if you are running into virtual memory issues. 4GB of memory is not really enough to require any user memory management. Not enough to go around anyway.
     
  3. gentlefury macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #3
    OSX frees memory as it needs it.

    These applications tend to decrease performance.
     
  4. Lokheed macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    #4
    +1. They do absolutely nothing at all. OS X will issue RAM to whatever needs it. It's memory allocation is pretty damn good and cannot be circumvented by some 3rd party app.
     
  5. Quad5Ny macrumors 6502a

    Quad5Ny

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Location:
    New York, USA
    #5
    Modern operating systems handle memory management just fine on their own. It's crap in a nice bag. Don't buy it.

    Apple Developer: Memory Usage Performance Guidelines

    I'm actualy surprised Apple sells it in the Mac App Store. Didn't they ban "Memory Cleaners" from the iOS App Store awhile ago?
     
  6. wpotere Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    #6
    LOL, not Lion! I had it on my 2008 Macbook with 4 Gigs and it grabbed and held memory until it caused kernel panics. My solution... Back to Snow Leopard. Lion has memory management issues. I can only hope they will fix it soon.
     
  7. Lokheed macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    #7
    Stop spreading FUD. I have 8 GB of RAM and nothing else open but Safari (fresh instance), Software Update and Activity Monitor. I also have 4.38 GB of free RAM. Is Lion hoarding almost 4 GB for absolutely nothing? No, it's not.

    It frees up memory as needed. And running out of memory does not cause kernel panics...

    You think it does, so you reverted back. But if you knew enough about computers, you would have combed through the logs looking for the real culprit. Honestly, it's okay to be a n00b. What isn't okay is to rifle off ignorant remarks making other n00bs fearful and looking to waste money.
     
  8. kuwisdelu macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    #8
    I see people are still trying to monetize the "purge" command.
     
  9. fisherking thread starter macrumors 603

    fisherking

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    Location:
    ny somewhere
    #9
    yes, i am not buying it (nor am i 'buying it' LOL)...
     
  10. wpotere Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    #10
    Clearly you think you know me. I have been in the IT field for 20 + years and I am have looked at the logs and monitors to try and sort this. Kernel Task was tying up over 2+ Gigs of the max 4 I can run on my Macbook and was not releasing it. Yeah, the logs didn't really give me squat and Kernel Task was not letting it go for other apps to use. VMFusion never had an issue nor did other applications on my Mac until Lion. Now, before you get even more ignorant with your remarks, let me say that I also tried a FRESH install. Guess what, it did the same thing! Yes, memory issues caused by the Kernel can also cause a kernel panic. So Mr. smart guy, what is the issue? Uhh Uhhh....

    So, I rolled it back to SL and I am currently running two VM's, mail, safari and a few other apps for the last two days with no problems!

    So, now that I have debunked your idiotic remark, let me say that the wife's MBA is also struggling with Lion. That however, could be due to the fact that it is a 1st gen and only has 2 Gigs of ram in which Lion totally consumes. She constantly has kernel panics as well with various apps crashing that used to be stable.

    Bottom line is that Lion has issues releasing memory when finished. Put your poms poms down and realize that this is a new OS with issues. Will Apple fix them? I hope, but until then I will stick with SL as it operates much better than Lion.
     
  11. Lokheed macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    #11
    I know pediatrists that have had their doctorate degrees for 20 years too. I wouldn't go to see them about a heart condition or a tumour though. So, yeah, there's always that. Age doesn't necessarily bring wisdom. I'm sick of hearing that. Jajaja, you've been using a computer since the 80's. Big whoop. Doesn't mean you know past point and click.

    Clearly you have no idea how to gather reliable, valid data either. Did you try uninstalling VMWare to see if the problems cleared up? Running any other 3rd party drivers? Like Logitech Control Center for example? You haven't shown that you did any problem solving or systematic isolation of the kernel panics.

    Moreover, you've provided no evidence (read: zero) that Lion has memory allocation issues—just that you've had problems (oh, and your wife too).

    Debunked? Bottom line? You clearly think your counterarguments to have far greater weight than they do. Anywayyyyy, unless you actually have, you know, concrete data to state otherwise, you might as well just bow out of this gracefully.

    It never amazes me how many cats just can't admit they don't know squat. Which, as I said is fine, but then just stay out of a conversation. I know nothing about quantum physics, so I don't really go up and start an argument with Stephen Hawkings...
     
  12. wpotere Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    #12
    Wow, you are a tool!

    Do you think that I simply just came to the conclusion that it has memory issues after 2 min? Yes, I did reinstall (obviously you can't read as I said I loaded it fresh) the application and it was not only VMWare that was tanking. Mail crashed many times and Safari was hogging a ton of memory crashing as well (which some are now reporting is fixed) and kernel task still took and would not release memory even after I reloaded. Proof? My words clearly are not enough and I am so sorry that I didn't capture screen shots and plan ahead so that I could prove it to only you. :rolleyes: This is my opinion, if you don't like it move on....

    Thanks for attacking me. You mind providing a reason that you are on this quest? I'm so sorry that I have bad words about your beloved Apple. Why not crawl back into that hole of yours.

    BTW, I now have a VM running at 2 Gigs of ram and the system is still running fine with 0 crashes or panics. Hmmm... Yeah, Lion has no issues. :rolleyes:
     
  13. iThinkergoiMac macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Location:
    Terra
    #13
    +1

    In all seriousness, it is useful for clearing RAM when there isn't a lot available. On my wife's PBG4, I've been able to largely avoid most pageouts by running purge every now and then. OS X does a good job managing memory, but if I can avoid pageouts almost completely by doing a little bit of management on my own then clearly the OS can do better.

    Not to add to the attacking, but for someone who has been in the IT field for 20+ years you're not very aware of how much RAM your MacBook can actually take. While Apple has quoted your max RAM at 4 GB, your true max is either 6 GB or 8 GB, depending on your model. There actually isn't a MacBook with a true max of 4 GB. The very 1st generation maxed out at 2 GB, the 2nd and 3rd at 3.3 GB, between those and the aluminum MacBook they maxed out at 6 GB. From the aluminum MacBook on the max was 8 GB.

    I've got 6 GB RAM on my MacBook (see my sig) and Lion runs quite well. Once I updated CCC to take care of a bug where ccc_helper was running away with CPU (99%) and RAM (3+ GB of physical RAM) it looks as though I should be generally OK with just 4 GB RAM.
     
  14. wpotere Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    #14
    Nope, it is 4 Gig... I tired the 6 Gig bit and it wouldn't boot, thanks for that though. :rolleyes:
     
  15. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #15
    That app has one good purpose - reducing the load of your wallet. Seriously OSX does a great job at memory management. Any app that tries to improve on that usually does nothing at all, or causes instability with OSX.

    If you're incurring page-outs and swapping then up your ram, that's your only alternative.
     
  16. iThinkergoiMac macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Location:
    Terra
    #16
    Which MacBook do you have? I guarantee that your true max is not 4 GB. FWIW, on the MacBooks with a true max of 3.3 GB, under "About this Mac..." it will say it has 4 GB RAM, even though it can only use 3.3 GB. Activity Monitor will tell you how much you can actually use.

    This is only true if it is possible to upgrade your RAM. In my example, my wife's PBG4 is completely maxed out, but it still ends up swapping quite a bit. Purge is useful there.
     
  17. maflynn, Aug 17, 2011
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2011

    maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #17
    Agreed on the first part, you are limited based on which mac you have. Purging ram doesn't really do much, if resources run short OSX will free up the inactive ram and use it for wired or active as the needs arise.

    Edit:
    From apple
    KB Article
     
  18. paulsalter macrumors 68000

    paulsalter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    Would this be when you start seeing page-ins (when the apps inactive data is used by something else and it needs to read it back from disk)

    or is that something else altogether
     
  19. MacRum2011 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    #19
    I HAVE PAGE-INS AT 1.18GB, page outs 251mb, i think thats bad.
     
  20. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #20
    page-ins aren't that bad, its page-outs that are expensive. Ideally keeping both to a minimum is great but when you start seeing high page-outs, that's when you want to consider upgrading your ram.

    ----------

    Page-ins is when the OS starts to read swapped pages from the disk to ram, inactive ram is unused ram from a recent process that ended.
     
  21. iThinkergoiMac macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Location:
    Terra
    #21
    Right, that's what the OS is supposed to do. It doesn't always work like that, though. If the OS really always did this, I wouldn't be able to reduce the number of pageouts by running purge on a regular basis.
     
  22. hormelmeatcompa macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    #22
    iThinkergoiMac,

    I have the same problem you do. I wouldn't put much stock in what others here are saying about OS X always managing your RAM in the best way. Typing purge in the terminal does help me somewhat, but it's usually only temporary and the inactive memory climbs right back up to what it was before within an hour or so. I have constant slowdowns even with very small amounts of page-outs.

    While I disagree with almost everyone else here that OS X manages memory well, they're probably correct that the only real solution is to buy more RAM. I'm considering doing so.

    I have a 2011 i5 MBP with the stock 4GB of RAM, for the record.
     
  23. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #23
  24. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #24
    OS X is supposed to manage inactive and free memory in the best way possible, but that isn't necessarily the case. in the recent past I was running Aperture 3 on a 2008 Macbook Pro with 6GB of RAM. when using brushes, RAM usage went up and once free memory went below ~100 MB, Aperture started freezing. purging inactive RAM alleviated the problem.

    basically, OS X isn't as efficient at releasing inactive memory as it's supposed to be. and I think there's been some sort of memory problem since 10.6...I didn't see any problems with inactive memory, page outs, and swap inflating in 10.5.
     
  25. hormelmeatcompa macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    #25
    derbothaus:

    If the kernel manages it efficiently, why does it keep so much inactive when page ins/outs reach obscene levels? At some point, it's a better tradeoff to clear the inactive memory and give it to new apps/processes, instead of reserving it for recently closed things. While keeping some reserved in case you open a closed app/file again is good, doing it as aggressively as OS X does clearly isn't.
     

Share This Page