How's your memory usage in High Sierra?

[EugW]

I'm curious, have there been any objective measurements of High Sierra vs older OSes for comparative memory usage?

If I had to guess, I'd guess that High Sierra sometimes utilizes more memory than previous recent mac OSes, although I'm not sure if it's just placebo. Sure that may stand to reason but it'd be nice to see confirmation. The reason I say HS may use more memory is that while 4 GB is fine in High Sierra for very light usage, it seems to me that the instances of beachballing in High Sierra on 4 GB occur a bit more frequently than they did with El Capitan in my experience. Also, I find myself utilizing more compressed RAM (and sometimes swap) even with light usage than I did before. I don't know if I'm just imagining this, or if it's real, but I lean toward the latter, which would make sense since El Capitan was two OSes ago. I guess the other possibility is that the websites I'm visiting now are using more memory, but I was on El Capitan just a couple of months ago so that shouldn't be all that different on average.

In contrast, with similar usage, those issues basically disappear on an 8 GB system. I can say this since I have two near identical machines both running High Sierra, but one with 4 GB and one with 8 GB.

BTW, what I mean by light usage is Safari, Chrome, email, occasional small Word files, occasional light Photoshop, Messages, iTunes, etc.
[doublepost=1506629122][/doublepost]Oh, I guess I forgot about the possibility of memory leaks as well. Such as in this thread about WindowServer:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/windowserver-taking-unholy-amount-of-ram-in-10-13.2073381/

Having 8 GB would mask any memory leak issue.

 

[prisstratton]

When I first installed the High Sierra beta I was a little concerned about all of the processes running in memory as compared to Mavericks, which is what I was running on my MBP. However, one thing I noticed very quickly was that despite the amount of processes the RAM was being handled VERY WELL.

Using Mavericks under the same daily conditions I could easily see my RAM usage climb to 12 - 13 GB, out of 16 GB available. But, since moving to High Sierra I do not believe that my RAM usage has ever gone beyond 7 GB Memory Used and the system seems to be actively reclaiming memory all of the time. This has been easy to see as I can go back into Activity Monitor and see that Memory Used has dropped. I also see no use of compressed memory or swap, not that I would really expect to.

As for the WindowServer issue, I am not seeing any of that either. As I stated in the thread you quoted, I have been running High Sierra since Monday and memory usage for WindowServer sits at 126 MB.

I know some people are having numerous issues with this release, but for me it has been totally awesome. The beta ran great, the in-place upgrade was fast and absolutely flawless. I am just totally pleased all round.

 

[EugW]

In any case, I'd say that these days with High Sierra 4 GB is really the bare minimum even for very light usage. In El Capitan, 4 GB seemed a bit more manageable, but I wouldn't recommend buying an 4 GB machine in 2017 for High Sierra, even though Apple still sells a few 4 GB machines. Even for entry level, I'd recommend 8 GB RAM. Sticking with 4 GB might make sense for light users on old machines who don't want to invest more on an old machine though.

16 GB does provide more breathing room for heavy multitaskers, but for light users is overkill... for now...

 

[m_emelchenkov]

High Sierra memory management is a way more better than in Sierra. As for 4GB RAM — it's too low for modern OS. 8GB is minimum.

 

[EugW]

High Sierra memory management is a way more better than in Sierra.

What's changed?

Maybe what I was noticing was mostly just a function of memory leaks and/or increased memory usage from software (including Safari and specific websites).

However, my main comparison here was El Capitan vs High Sierra. On these laptops, I didn't bother with Sierra. My only Sierra machine was a 12 GB iMac, so it wasn't easy to compare to the laptops.

As for 4GB RAM — it's too low for modern OS. 8GB is minimum.

Yeah, it's really only just OK for really light usage these days.

 

[m_emelchenkov]

What's changed?

Maybe what I was noticing was mostly just a function of memory leaks and/or increased memory usage from software (including Safari and specific websites).

- Better caching (100% free mem is under the cache now, which is super-good).
- Lower memory footprint for all system apps, including Safari and Mail.
- Much better memory handling under high memory load (tons of apps and virtual machines).

 

[h9826790]

For me, it seems the memory management is better on HS. In the last month, I basically keep the Mac running 24/7 for video encoding. With 10.12.6, the memory used basically keep increasing until the next reboot.

With HS, it's clearly that the memory used will go up and down

And it will even release some memory during the process to let it be the cache

All memory still 100% utilised, but in a more effective way (more as cache)

 

[EugW]

For me, it seems the memory management is better on HS. In the last month, I basically keep the Mac running 24/7 for video encoding. With 10.12.6, the memory used basically keep increasing until the next reboot.

Good to hear, and nice graphs. What software is that?

I'll just point out though that I was comparing High Sierra against 10.11 El Capitan. I never ran 10.12 Sierra on these machines. Perhaps El Capitan has lower memory needs than Sierra (and High Sierra). (Sierra didn't offer me much of a reason to upgrade from El Capitan, but High Sierra's new HEVC/HEIF support makes it a must have, even for these older machines.)

My only Sierra machine was a completely different Mac, and with much more RAM, so I couldn't easily compare.

 

[h9826790]

Good to hear, and nice graphs. What software is that?

iStat 6

 

[EugW]

My 4 GB testing days are over.

Now both my secondary laptops have 8 GB. My primary laptop has 16 GB though, and my iMac has 24 GB.

I hadn't realized before, but right after boot, there is still a fair bit that it caches. Below is the Mac just after a fresh reboot, with only About This Mac and Activity Monitor loaded, and nothing else previously loaded.

BTW, for very light usage, maybe the best part of having 8 GB is the application caching.

 

[meme1255]

Have you any tip for using Xcode on external display with 4 GB RAM, please? I have to survive a few months with the machine in my sign as I don't want to have 2017 MBP if possible

 

[labyrinth153]

I have 16 gb and it is plenty. I can leave everything, including games, just running. No difference with Sierra/High Sierra.

 

[EugW]

I have 16 gb and it is plenty. I can leave everything, including games, just running. No difference with Sierra/High Sierra.

It's interesting to see your facebook page takes 1.45 GB RAM.

 

[labyrinth153]

It's interesting to see your facebook page takes 1.45 GB RAM.

Yes, if I close and open the tab it uses 200mb at first. It is using 318mb now. I think it slowly grows over time because facebook remembers previous states. (For example it knows if I click a menu, it keeps the menu open if I click to a new page, things like that).

 

[thingstoponder]

High Sierra memory management is a way more better than in Sierra. As for 4GB RAM — it's too low for modern OS. 8GB is minimum.

No it isn't. My 4GB machine is completely fine. Should you buy a machine in 2017 with 4GB of soldered RAM? No... But 4GB is still enough for most people.

When I bought my MBP in 2012 I planned to upgrade to 16GB as soon as possible because I read all the nonsense on macrumors about how you just NEED at least 8GB. Guess what? I never felt I needed more than 4GB. I see people on here talk about how their machine uses over 10GB just to do basic tasks. Well yeah, of course it uses RAM if it's there. But it certainly doesn't NEED that much RAM. If that were the case than iOS devices with only 1-4GB would be completely non-functional. The only time you need more RAM is if your memory pressure is constantly going into the red.

 

[jerwin]

High Sierra definitely uses more ram than Sierra.

1.3 gig for an amazon prime video is typical.
I get memory warnings all the time ("this tab was reloaded because it was using too much memory".)

Not a big deal, though. I wonder if Safari Networking still intermittently leaks like a sieve . Others, with soldered in RAM, are free to disagree.

 

[ZapNZs]

With a 2010 C2D MBA with 4 GB of RAM running HS w/ APFS, my memory pressure is unquestionably reduced.

 

[SaSaSushi]

2017 27-inch i7 iMac with 40GB and memory usage history in iStat Menus 6 shows very little change in RAM usage with High Sierra and if anything a slight improvement.

 

[EugW]

No it isn't. My 4GB machine is completely fine. Should you buy a machine in 2017 with 4GB of soldered RAM? No... But 4GB is still enough for most people.

When I bought my MBP in 2012 I planned to upgrade to 16GB as soon as possible because I read all the nonsense on macrumors about how you just NEED at least 8GB. Guess what? I never felt I needed more than 4GB. I see people on here talk about how their machine uses over 10GB just to do basic tasks. Well yeah, of course it uses RAM if it's there. But it certainly doesn't NEED that much RAM. If that were the case than iOS devices with only 1-4GB would be completely non-functional. The only time you need more RAM is if your memory pressure is constantly going into the red.

8 GB definitely runs smoother on this machine than 4 GB, even for light usage.

4 GB is OK, but 8 GB is a definitely nicer experience.

16 GB for this usage (which is pretty light), makes no difference at all, but 8 GB is noticeably better.

BTW, 1 GB on an iOS device IMO is really, really annoying to use. I sold my iPhone 5s back in 2016 specifically because Safari tab reloads were driving me up the wall.

 

[EugW]

I think a lot of it comes down to how you like to surf. Safari can use quite a lot of memory even with just half a dozen or so sites open.

It seems the average website consumes about 100-400 MB, so it would be pretty easy to use around 2 GB or more just with Safari alone. However, as mentioned elsewhere, occasionally I can see some sites using over 1 GB on their own. In fact, earlier in the thread labyrinth153 has a facebook page at 1.45 GB. I don't know if these 1+ GB sites may be partially due to memory leaks on those pages or whatever, but nonetheless it occurs.

I also don't know for sure if it is worse in Safari 11 or not, but my impression is that it is, because I noticed it more in High Sierra. I wasn't using Safari 11 in El Capitan, and now I can no longer directly compare since I no longer use El Capitan on any machine. However, when I was using Safari 10 on El Capitan, I wasn't seeing as much super high Safari memory usage as often. But again, it could be due to memory leaks, which could get corrected as Safari 11 (and High Sierra) gets updated.

 

[0003939]

For me, it seems the memory management is better on HS. In the last month, I basically keep the Mac running 24/7 for video encoding. With 10.12.6, the memory used basically keep increasing until the next reboot.
View attachment 722182
With HS, it's clearly that the memory used will go up and down
View attachment 722183
And it will even release some memory during the process to let it be the cache
View attachment 722181
All memory still 100% utilised, but in a more effective way (more as cache)
View attachment 722184

Does the RAM usage by Safari looks normal to you?

 

[m_emelchenkov]

It seems the average website consumes about 100-400 MB

Google Analytics website eats 1.3 GB, who more :-D

 

[h9826790]

Does the RAM usage by Safari looks normal to you?

If you have around 20 tap opened, yes.

If only 1-2 tap, no.

(Of course, still depends on the web page)

 

[jerwin]

some webpages are indeed profligate

 

[Floris]

iMac 2017, 27" 5k i7, 1tb ssd @ 2gb write and 2,6gb read, and only 8gb ram, but it's working fine.
I haven't had any memory issues. I can run game servers, play steam games, facetime video, etc all at the same time while doing some screen recording.. it's fine.

But it's maxing it out obviously. The fast SSD helps. I can't wait to have some left over money and put 2x16gb extra memory in the system next year. On top of the 2x4gb and in 5+ years, to remove the 8gb and put another 32gb in to max it out.