You are not logged in.

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

hhh
Ol' Pink Eyes
Registered: 2015-09-17
Posts: 12,759
Website

Conky RAM ouput

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!


Does your physical disability preclude you from coming to the point?

Offline

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

ceeslans
Member
Registered: 2015-09-30
Posts: 117

Re: Conky RAM ouput

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.

Offline

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

hhh
Ol' Pink Eyes
Registered: 2015-09-17
Posts: 12,759
Website

Re: Conky RAM ouput

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


Does your physical disability preclude you from coming to the point?

Offline

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

hhh
Ol' Pink Eyes
Registered: 2015-09-17
Posts: 12,759
Website

Re: Conky RAM ouput

I had time. Dagnabbit, same result...

Jtd5PBzt.png

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

CG2AR7ut.png


Does your physical disability preclude you from coming to the point?

Offline

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

ohnonot
...again
Registered: 2015-09-29
Posts: 5,568

Re: Conky RAM ouput

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.


Give to COVAX! Here or here. (explanation)
My Repos: notabug | framagit

Offline

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

napcok
Member
From: Poland
Registered: 2018-12-22
Posts: 10
Website

Re: Conky RAM ouput

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

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

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

Offline

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

ceeslans
Member
Registered: 2015-09-30
Posts: 117

Re: Conky RAM ouput

napcok wrote:

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

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

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)

Offline

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

hhh
Ol' Pink Eyes
Registered: 2015-09-17
Posts: 12,759
Website

Re: Conky RAM ouput

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..."


Does your physical disability preclude you from coming to the point?

Offline

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

johnraff
nullglob
From: Nagoya, Japan
Registered: 2015-09-09
Posts: 8,615
Website

Re: Conky RAM ouput

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


...elevator in the Brain Hotel, broken down but just as well...
( a boring Japan blog (currently paused), idle Twitterings and GitStuff )

Introduction to the Bunsenlabs Lithium Desktop

Offline

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

johnraff
nullglob
From: Nagoya, Japan
Registered: 2015-09-09
Posts: 8,615
Website

Re: Conky RAM ouput

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?


...elevator in the Brain Hotel, broken down but just as well...
( a boring Japan blog (currently paused), idle Twitterings and GitStuff )

Introduction to the Bunsenlabs Lithium Desktop

Offline

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

unklar
Back to the roots 1.9
From: #! BL
Registered: 2015-10-31
Posts: 1,656

Re: Conky RAM ouput

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. big_smile

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

ftRDQNOt.png

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. wink
My 2cents.

Offline

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

johnraff
nullglob
From: Nagoya, Japan
Registered: 2015-09-09
Posts: 8,615
Website

Re: Conky RAM ouput

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}

...elevator in the Brain Hotel, broken down but just as well...
( a boring Japan blog (currently paused), idle Twitterings and GitStuff )

Introduction to the Bunsenlabs Lithium Desktop

Offline

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

hhh
Ol' Pink Eyes
Registered: 2015-09-17
Posts: 12,759
Website

Re: Conky RAM ouput

Lower/Incorrect?

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


Does your physical disability preclude you from coming to the point?

Offline

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

johnraff
nullglob
From: Nagoya, Japan
Registered: 2015-09-09
Posts: 8,615
Website

Re: Conky RAM ouput

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)


...elevator in the Brain Hotel, broken down but just as well...
( a boring Japan blog (currently paused), idle Twitterings and GitStuff )

Introduction to the Bunsenlabs Lithium Desktop

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB