• pvsage
  • Internal Affairs
  • Online
  • From: Section Six
  • Registered: 2009-10-18
  • Posts: 6,011

Topic: low memory utilization

One obvious reason that CrunchBang is so good for older PC's is its conservative use of RAM.  For example, on my relatively new netbook, Statler hardly ever uses more than 200MB.

Here's the thing:  I have 2GB installed.  Did I throw away money on the extra RAM?  Is it possible to make Statler run even faster by using more system memory?  Are there other things that the "extra" memory can be used for in Debian, like a RAM disk?

I just get the feeling that my netbook's resources aren't being fully utilized...

while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );
  • From: here
  • Registered: 2010-01-15
  • Posts: 192

Re: low memory utilization

@pvsage I love this post , it's a first for me seeing someone pondering why their machine uses so little memory. smile

.signature
  • From: Ontario, Canada
  • Registered: 2009-06-29
  • Posts: 1,420

Re: low memory utilization

I get much the same feeling sometimes, pvsage.
My laptop has a screamin' graphics card and 4gb ddr3 ram, and yea, i use about 200MB - 400MB in gimp.
I have asked myself the same question a few times now.
Virtual machines are a good way to take up the memory, so is any kind of video converting etc. So there are times when your ram will be used.
I'd almost like to have the option to boot #! in ram instead of off my HDD sometimes though.

just call me...
~FSM~
  • From: Nagoya, Japan
  • Registered: 2009-01-07
  • Posts: 1,971

Re: low memory utilization

When you have free memory the system will use it as a cache for data it thinks might come in handy later: "cache" and "buffer" are words that come to mind, though I haven't read up on the details...

Try running 

free -m

You might find more of your ram is being gainfully employed than the figure conky or htop show.
More here.

edit two more:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/2770
http://rimuhosting.com/howto/memory.jsp

Last edited by johnraff (2010-05-08 04:45:42)

John
------------------------
( a boring Japan blog , and idle twitterings )
“Good morning sir, which way up would you like your reality today?”  "As it comes, Jeeves, as it comes..."

johnraff's Website

  • Registered: 2009-01-30
  • Posts: 125

Re: low memory utilization

there are hacks to speed up firefox by moving its cache from hd to ram, try google on this

  • From: California, USA
  • Registered: 2008-11-29
  • Posts: 8,647

Re: low memory utilization

If you really are desparate to use your memory, get some really heavy KDE distro and load it in a virtual machine tongue

But seriously, like johnraff said Linux does use your memory for cache.

Last edited by anonymous (2010-05-08 10:34:57)

Note: ** Please read before posting **

BTW if you wish to contact me, send me an e-mail instead of a PM.
  • Registered: 2008-11-24
  • Posts: 2,087

Re: low memory utilization

I used to think the "toram" feature of many distros was neat ("Wow! Applications open instantly!!!") until I realized it just made boot time longer, therefore on a cosmic level there is no time savings/performance advantage. smile

I agree with the above; the best use for 2gb of ram is virtualbox... I have a virtual machine with no virtual hard drive, called "Live CD Tester," that often sits in the corner of my desktop test-driving the latest I've read about at Distrowatch. That is how I ran Statler for the first couple of weeks, actually. It is nice to test new distros without burning a CD or even rebooting the computer! I also sometimes run Windows in virtualbox for Adobe Creative Suite. I wish graphics performance of the virtual machine was better, though, so I could watch netflix streaming... for that I need to dual boot. sad

  • pvsage
  • Internal Affairs
  • Online
  • From: Section Six
  • Registered: 2009-10-18
  • Posts: 6,011

Re: low memory utilization

^ Does a single-core Atom have the processing power to handle a virtual machine?  I thought either a faster processor or a separate core was necessary for this.

I guess I'll just be happy that I have the spare room available.  Still, I feel like a bachelor living in Gracie Manor.

while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );
  • Registered: 2008-11-24
  • Posts: 2,087

Re: low memory utilization

VirtualBox works fine on the Atom smile, but of course it is very slow. sad

  • Registered: 2009-12-11
  • Posts: 220

Re: low memory utilization

You could try "Preload", as found in the suppositories. wink

  • rich
  • #! Junkie
  • Offline
  • From: teh interwebs
  • Registered: 2009-01-26
  • Posts: 408

Re: low memory utilization

d2ogch3n wrote:

@pvsage I love this post , it's a first for me seeing someone pondering why their machine uses so little memory. smile

Lol! I was just thinking the same thing.

If you have got so much RAM and Proc power available, why not join a folding group? We could set up a Crunchbang folding team and help Stanford study diseases smile

Folding @ Home:
http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Main

Stanford University Team List:
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/daily_team_summary.txt

Our goal: to understand protein folding, misfolding, and related diseases

You can help scientists studying these diseases by simply running a piece of software.
Folding@home is a distributed computing project -- people from throughout the world download and run software to band together to make one of the largest supercomputers in the world. Every computer takes the project closer to our goals. Folding@home uses novel computational methods coupled to distributed computing, to simulate problems millions of times more challenging than previously achieved.

Last edited by rich (2010-05-09 17:02:42)

| ultimate crunchbang howto everything | debianandi | g+ |
  • From: California, USA
  • Registered: 2008-11-29
  • Posts: 8,647

Re: low memory utilization

An Intel Atom is not much proc power. Its probably not too good for folding.

Note: ** Please read before posting **

BTW if you wish to contact me, send me an e-mail instead of a PM.
  • From: Algarve, Portugal
  • Registered: 2009-02-07
  • Posts: 201

Re: low memory utilization

pvsage wrote:

^ Does a single-core Atom have the processing power to handle a virtual machine?  I thought either a faster processor or a separate core was necessary for this.

A single-core (any) cpu isn't recommended for virtual machines, it works but it's slow. You'll be better with a dual-core or more. With an dual-core Atom, virtual machines are usable.

Cumprimentos. Regards.
Asus EeeBoxPC 1501P and EeePC 1000H with #! Xfce Linux
  • Registered: 2008-11-24
  • Posts: 2,087

Re: low memory utilization

jotapesse wrote:
pvsage wrote:

^ Does a single-core Atom have the processing power to handle a virtual machine?  I thought either a faster processor or a separate core was necessary for this.

A single-core (any) cpu isn't recommended for virtual machines, it works but it's slow. You'll be better with a dual-core or more. With an dual-core Atom, virtual machines are usable.

Virtual machines are much faster on my single-core 3ghz Pentium 4 than on my dual-core 1.6ghz Atom 330. smile

  • From: Algarve, Portugal
  • Registered: 2009-02-07
  • Posts: 201

Re: low memory utilization

snowpine wrote:
jotapesse wrote:

A single-core (any) cpu isn't recommended for virtual machines, it works but it's slow. You'll be better with a dual-core or more. With an dual-core Atom, virtual machines are usable.

Virtual machines are much faster on my single-core 3ghz Pentium 4 than on my dual-core 1.6ghz Atom 330. smile

Hmmmm... I don't know about that. But I do know that they work faster on my dual-core Atom N330 than on my single-core Atom N270 (both at 1.6GHz). Besides cpu speed, two or more core matters a lot to multitasking, running a virtual machine (or more) besides others apps on the host system will stress more a single-core cpu than a multi-core one. That was my point. smile

Cumprimentos. Regards.
Asus EeeBoxPC 1501P and EeePC 1000H with #! Xfce Linux
  • From: Ontario, Canada
  • Registered: 2009-06-29
  • Posts: 1,420

Re: low memory utilization

snowpine wrote:
jotapesse wrote:
pvsage wrote:

^ Does a single-core Atom have the processing power to handle a virtual machine?  I thought either a faster processor or a separate core was necessary for this.

A single-core (any) cpu isn't recommended for virtual machines, it works but it's slow. You'll be better with a dual-core or more. With an dual-core Atom, virtual machines are usable.

Virtual machines are much faster on my single-core 3ghz Pentium 4 than on my dual-core 1.6ghz Atom 330. smile

Thats not really comparing apples to apples. Also, is your P4 hyperthreaded?
Do you have any metrics to back up the claim? (i dont know what you could use, but by the generational factor alone, they should be fairly similar speeds).
I'm not very familiar with the atom, but against another dual core processor (pretty much any from the desktop line) at 1.6, it would beat your P4.

Though perhaps you were just trying to disprove the 'any single-core cpu isnt recommended' which i disagree with as well, considering VMs really aren't /that/ demanding.

just call me...
~FSM~