Conky RAM ouput

hhh · 2021-10-09 20:41:20

Posting this here because, even though it's an issue I noticed a long, long time ago, I'm using a brand new Bullseye/Beryllium install (though I have already removed at-spi2-core and xfce4-clipman), so moving forward. The scrot...

https://i.imgur.com/qkf01HJ.png

https://imgur.com/a/0rHcsHz

Why is it 300 in neofetch and lxtask but over 500 with the default BL conky config?

-edit- Dang, nice desktop. Good job, Team!

ceeslans · 2021-10-10 08:51:43

The problem with Conky reporting such oversized-memory values only started occurring with conky version 1.11.6 ( --> which is exactly the version that ships with Debian bullseye and MX-Linux). Apparently this was patched in conky version 1.12.2. This build has only reached Arch, Gentoo and Fedora repositories, but not Debian or any of its derivatives (afaik).
There are some workarounds (see forum post https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic … 88#p111888 back in March this year) - or you could downgrade to the buster version 1.10.8, which also works perfectly in bullseye.

hhh · 2021-10-10 20:05:22

Great info, I'll test it when I can (downgrading). Thanks!

hhh · 2021-10-10 20:56:29

I had time. Dagnabbit, same result...

Which sucks. It makes BL look bloated, when in fact it is lean and mean. Just look!

ohnonot · 2021-10-11 05:54:02

https://www.linuxatemyram.com/

Sure it's a bug?
The conky manual mentions a configuration setting that could have an influence here:
no_buffers
Is it set to true?

Always compare to

free -h

output - who knows what sort of values lxtask uses.

napcok · 2021-10-11 10:40:09

In recent Conky version $mem is calculated as MemTotal - MemAvailable.

If you need old behaviour replace $mem with $legacymem in your config

Last edited by napcok (2021-10-11 10:44:44)

ceeslans · 2021-10-11 17:13:08

napcok wrote:

In recent Conky version $mem is calculated as MemTotal - MemAvailable.
If you need old behaviour replace $mem with $legacymem in your config

The $legacymem setting is only implemented in conky v/ 1.12.2 - up. Whereas debian bullseye only offers conky v/1.11.6

Obviously, opinions differ about 'correct' memory consumption values, ie [usedmem] as reported in lxtask and conky v.1.9/1.10 - or [memtotal - memavailable] as reported in neofetch and conky v.1.11.6-up ...

Last edited by ceeslans (2021-10-12 16:33:48)

hhh · 2021-10-11 19:40:35

It's fine. I'm just relieved to know that BL isn't actually using nearly as much RAM in idle as GNOME does!

It does look bad from a PR standpoint... you install BL and the desktop shows RAM usage that's almost double what is really being used. Then you get the reviews, "RAM usage was a bit high..."

johnraff · 2021-10-17 08:16:57

hhh wrote:

It does look bad from a PR standpoint... you install BL and the desktop shows RAM usage that's almost double what is really being used. Then you get the reviews, "RAM usage was a bit high..."

True. For example:
http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/156517

johnraff · 2021-12-12 08:44:20

So, what should conky in BL Beryllium do? Show the "bloated" - but more correct - RAM figure that bullseye conky gives, or the "normal" value derived from 'free -h' that matches - for now - what some other utilities show?

Really, I guess we should do the Right Thing and follow the accepted wisdom that RAM figures had been showing too low all this time, and just let the reviewers complain?

Opinions?

unklar · 2021-12-12 13:50:22

I think we should go back to version 1.9 and not follow the hickhack of a brndnmtthws. Just like antiX does with his version conky-legacy-all. We would set a monument to Sector11.

Also, if brndnmtthws with "legacymem" gets around the problem again in 1.12, lua-bindings are missing again. :8

On the screenshot only bpytop with the old values is noticeable.
Debian has never been one of the "first" with conky! Therefore I assume that version 1.12 will not even make it into bookworm.

I know @johnraff what enormous work conky requires. Therefore, let the critics have their way, as you suggest. They are all just intelligent people.
My 2cents.

johnraff · 2021-12-13 04:50:34

As I understand it, other utilities like free and htop will also shift to the new Approved Way of calculating free RAM in due course (probably Debian last) so allowing conky to do the same will be the the path of least resistance, if we ignore the reviewers who haven't caught up...

For now, since $legacymem is not available, I propose this in conkyrc:

RAM:$alignr${mem} / ${memmax}
# This version reports the same (incorrect) lower RAM usage as free or htop:
#RAM:${alignr}${exec free -h --si | awk '/^Mem:/{printf $3}'} / ${memmax}

hhh · 2021-12-13 05:12:43

Lower/Incorrect?

It's all numbers and I hate math. Explain, please. And, by all means, implement it.

johnraff · 2021-12-13 07:34:06

Apparently the lower figure is wrong with modern systems because cache contains some important stuff that can't be thrown away.

https://github.com/brndnmtthws/conky/issues/1090

nearly every other program, besides free, have already fixed memory reporting in a released version or in their next release (for example: htop, inxi, neofetch, screenfetch, etc) to match how it should be done with modern Linux

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/ke … 722c9da773

Many load balancing and workload placing programs check /proc/meminfo to
estimate how much free memory is available. They generally do this by
adding up "free" and "cached", which was fine ten years ago, but is
pretty much guaranteed to be wrong today.

"Implement" in this case just means leaving conky the way it is, with figures for used RAM that are going to surprise some people, but adding a commented-out line for those who'd rather see it the old way. But we're going to get some flak from the less informed reviewers. I guess we could reverse which line gets commented out, and change the comment, but it feels cheap.

Last edited by johnraff (2021-12-13 07:43:08)

#1 2021-10-09 20:41:20

Conky RAM ouput

#2 2021-10-10 08:51:43

Re: Conky RAM ouput

#3 2021-10-10 20:05:22

Re: Conky RAM ouput

#4 2021-10-10 20:56:29

Re: Conky RAM ouput

#5 2021-10-11 05:54:02

Re: Conky RAM ouput

#6 2021-10-11 10:40:09

Re: Conky RAM ouput

#7 2021-10-11 17:13:08

Re: Conky RAM ouput

#8 2021-10-11 19:40:35

Re: Conky RAM ouput

#9 2021-10-17 08:16:57

Re: Conky RAM ouput

#10 2021-12-12 08:44:20

Re: Conky RAM ouput

#11 2021-12-12 13:50:22

Re: Conky RAM ouput

#12 2021-12-13 04:50:34

Re: Conky RAM ouput

#13 2021-12-13 05:12:43

Re: Conky RAM ouput

#14 2021-12-13 07:34:06

Re: Conky RAM ouput

Board footer