i think this is part of the problem. i notice a considerable slow down when i use my macbook in extended desktop mode. try using it without an external, and see if it seems faster to you.
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.
512MB > 1.25GB RAM Hasn't Shown Much Speed Increase
- Thread starter xJulianx
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i think this is part of the problem. i notice a considerable slow down when i use my macbook in extended desktop mode. try using it without an external, and see if it seems faster to you.
I'll do that now, just about to go and watch a film so I'll take my MacBook with me.
Plenty of available memory, no pageouts. You have enough RAM.
I have 2GB of RAM in my iMac, and so far today I have had 237 page outs. (Around 70k page ins) is this bad? I don't notice any lag in performance...
It's only bad if you aren't satisfied with the performance of your Mac.
237 Page Outs is not bad. Usually the number of Page Outs is either 0 or several thousand. My guess is that you momemtarily ran out of available memory while having a high number of apps open (most of which you probably weren't actively using).
Try closing some apps when you aren't using them. Or if you are dealing with especially large video editing or image editing tasks, I would recommend closing any other apps you aren't using during this time.
when i said a quarter, i'm using it as a general guidence, not saying if you have a gig less than that you'll explode, but leave that much is safe.
the OP has 4.5 GB of free space, yet the Activity Monitor needs 9+ GB... this is obviously where it's holding up. I just started my MBP and the virtual memory is 11.87 GB
Currently, I have Camino (3 tabs), iTunes, Mail, Messenger, Transmission and Activity Monitor open.
I forgot to mention, My MacBook is running in extended desktop mode with a 19in display.
disk space aren't just used for virtual memory. in addition of virtual memory, OS stores cache on your harddrive, to increase speed of applications and web page loading. if you don't have enough space, OS won't store anything, which might also cause your speeds.
another things to check:
1. do you have bunch of things on your desktop? don't put them on the desktop. or at least put them in a folder on the desktop.
2. check your file system and repair permission
Yeah, this was most likely because I ran Google Earth for a little bit, (without anything else open) and I allow it to use as much RAM as it can (1.5gigs), should I lower this? Will I see a loss in performance if I do so?
Where it says 9.90GB, does this mean it is using that much space, or it needs that much space?
If you leave Google Earth running continuously, I would give it much less memory to hog, personally. I only allow it to cache up to 320MB (default, I believe).
If you only use it for relatively short periods of time, I don't see any harm in allowing it a larger memory cache limit, but I think 3/4 of your physical RAM is a bit much. See how it the app performs with, say, 512-768MB.
Using.
I don't know why it would be so high right off the bat. I don't think it could cause these slowdown considering you still have plenty of available RAM, but I really can't say for sure.
Perhaps. Again, someone else would know more about this type of stuff than me, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
*sweats nervously*
Where are CanadaRAM and mad jew when you need them...
it's using, however, the OS could use more... for virtual memory, cache, logs, etc, etc but it's not because you don't have much left.
why don't you move some stuff to an external, see if the system runs better
Perhaps. Again, someone else would know more about this type of stuff than me, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
You've been very helpful anyway, so thanks for that. I might reset in a little while and keep an eye on activity monitor and see what's happening.
I'm saving up for an external at the moment. I have 4 seasons of 24 that are about 10GB each
And thats without adding my 3,000 song iTunes library.
Your machine slows down when the total amount of OS + apps + data RAM requirement exceeds the amount of physical RAM you have.
If you were never exceeding 512 Mb before (that is, you were religious about quitting programs when you weren't using them, and you weren't running programs that require Rosetta) then the change from 512 to 1.25 Gb would not be apparent -- coz you were running as fast as you could in the first place.
In the case where you exceeded 512, such as Logic, you should see a difference in the performance of programs when you load up enough to exceed 512 Mb but less than 1.25.
If however you regularly exceed 1.25 Gb RAM, you are right back to using VM again and the machine will slow back down.
Your PageOuts look healthy, but I suspect you hadn't run the machine very long when you took the screenshot. Have a look at it again once you have used it for a day, and have opened your normal load of programs and used them.
To the other poster -- PageOuts should be under 10% of PageIns, and preferably under 5%. If yours is 300 vs 10,000 then you're good.
As mentioned, running two screens off of the shared video loads the machine down and consumes extra RAM.
Also, running background processes like folding, antivirus or P2P apps, consumes RAM, CPU and network bandwidth. Dashboard widgets consume memory, reduce the number you have loaded.
Run DeLocalizer if you haven;t already and see if you can free up another Gb on your hard drive by deleting foreign language resources.
If you were never exceeding 512 Mb before (that is, you were religious about quitting programs when you weren't using them, and you weren't running programs that require Rosetta) then the change from 512 to 1.25 Gb would not be apparent -- coz you were running as fast as you could in the first place.
In the case where you exceeded 512, such as Logic, you should see a difference in the performance of programs when you load up enough to exceed 512 Mb but less than 1.25.
If however you regularly exceed 1.25 Gb RAM, you are right back to using VM again and the machine will slow back down.
Your PageOuts look healthy, but I suspect you hadn't run the machine very long when you took the screenshot. Have a look at it again once you have used it for a day, and have opened your normal load of programs and used them.
To the other poster -- PageOuts should be under 10% of PageIns, and preferably under 5%. If yours is 300 vs 10,000 then you're good.
As mentioned, running two screens off of the shared video loads the machine down and consumes extra RAM.
Also, running background processes like folding, antivirus or P2P apps, consumes RAM, CPU and network bandwidth. Dashboard widgets consume memory, reduce the number you have loaded.
Run DeLocalizer if you haven;t already and see if you can free up another Gb on your hard drive by deleting foreign language resources.
Thanks CanadaRAM, that cleared quite alot up. I'll keep my MacBook going for a couple of days before I next do a reset and have a nosey at the activity monitor.
I believe this is not actually the case. You can look into your virtual memory directory at: /private/var/vm and see the precise amount of disk space devoted to virtual memory swap files at any given time (requires enabling viewing of hidden directories). Quickly, you will see that this number and the number reported in Activity Monitor are not even close to the same. It exceeds my technical knowledge to explain the relationship between these numbers and why they can be so different, but it seems fairly obvious to me that the system can't be using more disk space for virtual memory then it has available, and doesn't need to use virtual memory at all when free RAM is available. Looking at /private/var/vm seems to confirm this supposition.
For example, Activity Monitor currently reports for my system a 4.4 GB VM size. Yet, it also reports over 400 MB of free RAM, zero pageouts and I find I have only one VM swap file at 64 MB (the default minimum).
I understand this, but only about as much as you do and offer no explanation. I have noticed the actually swap file size to be much smaller than the total VM size, but I haven't been able to find out why.