jessie sub-100MB RAM at boot

ohnonot · 2015-10-18 20:00:26

hhh wrote:

There are some people who put a high priority on RAM usage at idle being low

yes, i noticed that.
but then i think, it always depends on what i want/need the machine for and how much physical ram i have.
i mean, if it never goes beyond 10%, i can say: "i am the guru of ultimate linux ascetism", but what's the point?
me, i have a slow processor but enough ram, so cpu usage is more crucial, but the same principle applies: if you have it, use it.

i think that goes for linux development, too. devs code in a different way than ten years ago, because the typical use case has shifted, even if you allow for the typical linux user to have slightly older hardware.

because my hardware is pretty effing old, i use the LTS kernel, hoping that it has some damping effect on other applications, too.
in other words: i'm hoping that my system somehow becomes more lightweight or more suitable for old hardware.
i have never investigated how much factual truth there's in that, or of it's just superstition.

nobody0 · 2015-10-18 20:25:57

The apps are getting bloated, so the processes are getting bloated. Sometimes the "development" is making things more complicated. In the DOS days, there was a very good word processor called TAG in Poland, which of course was pushed out by MS Word. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA80uc4W0no The RAM was 8 MB then.

Last edited by nobody0 (2015-10-18 20:26:30)

hhh · 2015-10-18 21:14:15

brontosaurusrex wrote:

The more interesting question is why would any idle system need to take 100 megs of ram? (irc I did 3d rendering on a machine with 14 megs of ram some years ago)

In the case of BL, something like this...

You'd see something similar if you were running, for instance, jessie mate or xfce4. So something approaching a DE.

nobody0 · 2015-10-18 22:06:44

^ The sum of RSS values need not be the actual RAM they're consuming. In your case, the scrot shows your system is using 130 MB of RAM, but the sum of the RSS is ~270 MB. Some child processes share the same RSS with the parent. Only, you scrot shows that some processes such as screenshooter, nm-applet, pnmixer, compton, lxtask, lightlocker should be not started automatically, but called on-demand, that is, if you have little RAM in your computer.

Last edited by nobody0 (2015-10-19 06:19:01)

hhh · 2015-10-18 23:14:18

ostrolek wrote:

^ The sum of RSS values need not be the actual RAM they're consuming. In your case, the scrot shows your system is using 130 MB of RAM, but the sum of the RSS is ~270 MB.

Of course, you go by the graph, so 130 minus some for lxtask itself, or conky, or the terminal you run htop in, or however you monitor such things.

The rest of what you wrote is neither here nor there (in this case the processes are being started in ~/.config/autostart and ~/.config/openbox/autostart. xfce4-screen-shooter is there because I'm taking a screenshot and lxtask because I'm monitoring tasks *cough*).

I edited the thread title, it seemed unnecessarily flame-baitey.

johnraff · 2015-10-19 02:25:49

"Reduce Debian" is interesting, but some of the information might be out of date. eg none of the packages linked to in the "cups" section exist any more.

nobody0 · 2015-10-19 07:53:39

hhh wrote:

ostrolek wrote:
^ The sum of RSS values need not be the actual RAM they're consuming. In your case, the scrot shows your system is using 130 MB of RAM, but the sum of the RSS is ~270 MB.
Of course, you go by the graph, so 130 minus some for lxtask itself, or conky, or the terminal you run htop in, or however you monitor such things.
The rest of what you wrote is neither here nor there (in this case the processes are being started in ~/.config/autostart and ~/.config/openbox/autostart. xfce4-screen-shooter is there because I'm taking a screenshot and lxtask because I'm monitoring tasks *cough*).
I edited the thread title, it seemed unnecessarily flame-baitey.

Cut down the processes, cut down the RAM usage at boot.

My nearly 5 year old i3, 3GB RAM boots up at 38MB without Xorg and all, 87MB only with Polkit stuff, Tint2 and Thunar and at 164MB with all processes on. I am not that worried about how much RAM used at boot, as I have 3GB RAM.

BLizgreat! · 2015-10-21 19:56:21

But after an hour of uptime, jessie's using over 155MB at idle anyway and there's no loss in performance, that's my point

*Jealous of hhh, how dare you Sir complain of 155mbs ! For real your stats sound pretty dang good for modern nix.

Yeah, I still focus more on sys resource usage than is probably healthy and/or productive. Not the insane resource fanatic from dys gone by anymore though.

Guessing neither are many of the opensource devs of the world. Outside of special purpose projects, devs or maintainers who are devoted to older systems-etc. Don't think the gnu/nix devs of the world put nearly so much focus on it anymore, with RAM being so plentiful in so many systems.

Jmo .. makes much sense, IF they're taking advantage of it for actual productive purposes. ie: Increases speed/performace/stability/security, allows additional features etc blahblah.

Would be negligent on their part if they didn't use the availability of more resources to enhance their projects and performance. Things have clearly changed in terms of avg system resources and they'll change accordingly to utilize that fact.

Like all things nixish, many of those things in how the kernel or OS-distro uses and manages available memory can be config'ed to better suit x-nixers personal preferences.

Still am a 110% committed efficiency fanatic. aka: Tweakster, always something to focus optimization efforts on. Memory usage will always be one of those for me too.

With gnu/Linux you'll never have a shortage of things to optimize or tweak the hell-outta. Lol ... what you probably will have a shortage of, time to devote to tweakage efforts. DAMMIT !

VlBL!

hhh · 2015-10-22 01:47:54

BLwillbegreat! wrote:

155mb

A little less for my Xfce4 setup. So, yeah, first world problems.

https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic … 4074#p4074

altman · 2015-10-25 13:42:49

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

ghorvath wrote:
I always had the feeling that the more memory you have, the more the OS is willing to use up.
http://www.linuxatemyram.com/
@hhh -- does BL use less memory if you start it with sysvinit rather than systemd?
https://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianU … _Jessie.3F
My jessie system has GNOME so I can't tell...

Thanx for these links , something that I need to know more .

BLizgreat! · 2015-10-27 16:20:30

Lmao hhh ...

You're doing a bit better than me fellow nixer. Think this OS boots at almost 180mbs. Haven't really gotten obsessive about tweaking the thing yet outside of a applying the norm.

Jmo .. looks like you're doing really well in terms of system overhead though.

Vll!

#21 2015-10-18 20:00:26

Re: jessie sub-100MB RAM at boot

#22 2015-10-18 20:25:57

Re: jessie sub-100MB RAM at boot

#23 2015-10-18 21:14:15

Re: jessie sub-100MB RAM at boot

#24 2015-10-18 22:06:44

Re: jessie sub-100MB RAM at boot

#25 2015-10-18 23:14:18

Re: jessie sub-100MB RAM at boot

#26 2015-10-19 02:25:49

Re: jessie sub-100MB RAM at boot

#27 2015-10-19 07:53:39

Re: jessie sub-100MB RAM at boot

#28 2015-10-21 19:56:21

Re: jessie sub-100MB RAM at boot

#29 2015-10-22 01:47:54

Re: jessie sub-100MB RAM at boot

#30 2015-10-25 13:42:49

Re: jessie sub-100MB RAM at boot

#31 2015-10-27 16:20:30

Re: jessie sub-100MB RAM at boot

Board footer