2 ms·
At least in my experience, 99% of the time that I run out of physical RAM, it's because of some runaway process that's gobbling up as much as it can for no real
by LegionMammal978 3y ago
At least in my experience, 99% of the time that I run out of physical RAM, it's because of some runaway process that's gobbling up as much as it can for no real gain, or otherwise attempting to perform a computation that could only complete with an astronomical amount of memory.
After the offending process is killed, every other useful process has had all its memory swapped out, since the offending process was so urgent in its requests for memory. Then, since the system is so lazy at swapping memory back in, each process has degraded performance for the next several minutes of usage. So as an ultimate fix, I have a shell script on each of my machines that does "swapoff -a; swapon -a" to swap everything back within a minute.
My own experience makes me wonder, what RAM configurations are people running where they reportedly find swap so useful? Is everyone else running so many useful applications simultaneously that they use almost all their RAM?
- gymbeaux 3y agoOn one hand, it’s inefficient to have more RAM than you’ll ever use. So many people buy MacBooks with the largest RAM capacity and while that worked well in the days of 16GB being the max, I’m not sure 64GB of RAM is going to come in handy even 5 years from now. RAM doubles because “marketing”, but RAM requirements for programs hasn’t really increased, certainly not proportionally. In cases where going from 32GB to 64GB adds $400+ to the price of my computer (cough Apple cough) I think it’s worthwhile to have swap and deal with occasional (if any) performance penalties.