Usually the "problem" in those and similar threads is that so much RAM is used. The OP is, in effect, asking why it isn't used.
People could at least read before searching.
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.
There's something extremely wrong with the way Mavericks Handles RAM (16gb)
- Thread starter FrozenDarkness
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Usually the "problem" in those and similar threads is that so much RAM is used. The OP is, in effect, asking why it isn't used.
People could at least read before searching.
Linux lets you configure swappiness.
OS developers can, and have, picked reasonable defaults but this should be tunable - if you're running a large JVM the OS won't know which bits of it to swap or not and can kill performance.
I'm having a similar issue. I understand how Mavericks manages ram, but this doesn't explain why my 2013 MBA with 8 GB is using swap. If anything, Mavericks is supposed to do more to avoid swap. I never had any swap used under ML.
I've rebooted my computer multiple times, and every time I end up with swap after a few hours. Is it possible that some process emerges for just enough time to eat a ton of ram and then quickly disappears? That's the only thing I can think of. My normal workload doesn't even approach 8 GB of usage.
I've rebooted my computer multiple times, and every time I end up with swap after a few hours. Is it possible that some process emerges for just enough time to eat a ton of ram and then quickly disappears? That's the only thing I can think of. My normal workload doesn't even approach 8 GB of usage.
There's got to be something. I haven't turned my computer off since my last post, and mine still hasn't used swap. I'm on a MBP 2010.
Attachments
I think you are misinterpreting the information. It shows low/no memory pressure and hardly any ram used. The fact you appear to have some swap file usage shouldn't trouble you, perhaps it's just poor coding from Chrome or one of the other programmes
Hah, I find that hard to believe! On my ML system it's pretty much constantly using swap. Terrible memory management.
This is interesting.
I have 2 MBPs (one work, one personal, but with very similar usage patterns).
The old one has 8 GB RAM. Under ML it swapped a lot - even with lots of free RAM available. I've posted about this previously...
The newer MBP has 16 GB RAM. Under ML it never swapped. Great - that's why I bought the extra RAM.
Now, under Mavericks, the 8 GB RAM MBP doesn't swap at all - not even a single solitary byte.
But the 16 GB MBP *does* use swap under Mavericks.
Go figure...
I have 2 MBPs (one work, one personal, but with very similar usage patterns).
The old one has 8 GB RAM. Under ML it swapped a lot - even with lots of free RAM available. I've posted about this previously...
The newer MBP has 16 GB RAM. Under ML it never swapped. Great - that's why I bought the extra RAM.
Now, under Mavericks, the 8 GB RAM MBP doesn't swap at all - not even a single solitary byte.
But the 16 GB MBP *does* use swap under Mavericks.
Go figure...
How can someone type so much useless junk and didn't even think to write something to explain the situation? it's amazing.
----------
ya, it seems to say mavericks does everything it can to avoid swap. Which flies in the face of our eagle-eyed computer engineers who are arguing OH IF THE GREAT OSX HITS SWAP IT'S OKIDOKI DON WORRI.
whatever this has already been solved, it was probably some program that got pushed into swap and mavericks just never cleaned it up.
----------
i suppose mavericks can load my entire computer into swap and people would still hail mavericks. it's ridiculous. you avoid swap if you have that much ram free. i'll readily admit it might be my sesssion problem, but i won't admit i'm wrong into thinking using swap that early is a bad thing.
It's 300 megabytes...
Let me ask you this, you have a program that wrote 300MB into memory, this memory has not changed in 3 day and is completely inactive. Meanwhile you've suspended and resumed your computer many times, a few times it actually went to hibernation (ram written to hard drive and system powered off). Would you rather it rewrite that 300mb of inactive memory multiple times or simply write it to swap once?
Let me ask you this, you have a program that wrote 300MB into memory, this memory has not changed in 3 day and is completely inactive. Meanwhile you've suspended and resumed your computer many times, a few times it actually went to hibernation (ram written to hard drive and system powered off). Would you rather it rewrite that 300mb of inactive memory multiple times or simply write it to swap once?
Last edited by a moderator:
This isn't new
FD, this has been happening for a long time.
Here's a thread for ML: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1447721/
There were threads for Lion as well, and for Lion's predecessor as well.
What I find most interesting is that people claim everything's fine, don't worry and so forth - but Apple has been consistently fixing and enhancing virtual memory management the whole time, something they wouldn't be doing if it was working optimally.
Obviously they got something wrong here again, hopefully they will address it.
FD, this has been happening for a long time.
Here's a thread for ML: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1447721/
There were threads for Lion as well, and for Lion's predecessor as well.
What I find most interesting is that people claim everything's fine, don't worry and so forth - but Apple has been consistently fixing and enhancing virtual memory management the whole time, something they wouldn't be doing if it was working optimally.
Obviously they got something wrong here again, hopefully they will address it.
I think it allocates space on the SSD/HDD for the swap memory. That does not mean it uses the swap. Or how much data does OS X 10.9.x read/write from/to the swap file(s) in your configuration?
FYI, insults do not solve software-related issues.
It is much more likely, that an application causes the big swap memory problem. In that case it has nothing to do with Mavericks.
Hey man, start a thread with a sensationalist title ("There's something extremely wrong with the way Mavericks Handles RAM (16gb)") and you're going to attract a few sensationalist posts.
No offense but memory management is not as simple as something running or not running. Like others have said, Mavericks uses RAM in a magnitude of different ways now. Although I do agree with you, if you're using swap at all with 16 GB of RAM after a restart, something doesn't seem right. I have Mavericks on with 8 GB and running VMWare Fusion (1.5 GB for Windows 8.1), Safari, Mail, Skype, Coda and Remote Desktop and have 0 swap.
Bro if you don't free up some ramz your system is going to crash. Listen very carefully, don't open up anymore applications and reboot immediatly. Trust me I've skimmed through a computer book or two in my days. You also might want to go to http://downloadmoreram.com after your reboot to prevent this issue.
Thank you so much for this link, got fully loaded and Safari is now so much snappier. I can also play the Glockenspiel for the first time ever and deliver all my lectures in fluent Serbo-Croat; it's a miracle!
For what it's worth, my issue seems to have been fixed by a clean install of Mavericks. Uptime almost 2 days now without any swap used.
You're absolutely right. Mavericks is defective, and those 345.3MB of swap are totally slamming that SSD into premature death.
It's clear. The only solution is to ditch Mavericks and OS X completely. Never use it again. And switch to an OS that handles memory properly.
Exactly... they are arguing about an amount of data written to disk which on todays SSDs would take what? a second?
My Haswell 13" rMBP is exhibiting similar behavior after a couple sleep-wake cycles. I'm not using any VMs. Tried loading as many apps as possible to simulate my heaviest usage from a fresh reboot, and it never hit swap in active use. A few hours of sleep later, though, it shows swap used like so:
Power nap on/off didn't make any difference. It hits swap even with power nap off. Hopefully this gets addressed in a software update soon...
I wouldn't be over worried unless the memory pressure was high. 300 megabytes is nothing much. Ideally it should be zero, but it isn't drastically bad.