It is currently Thu Oct 31, 2024 4:31 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Do you think iTunes is bloated?
Post #101 Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:46 am 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 429
Location: Sweden
Liked others: 101
Was liked: 73
Rank: SDK
KGS: CarlJung
flOvermind wrote:
kirkmc wrote:
And the other point about the OS basically using what's available also can explain why, for one poster, iTunes is using 300 MB, or why, for me, it uses twice as much memory on one of my Macs as another.


Buffers can't explain that, because they are not counted towards individual app memory usage.


Hmm.. this contradicts my previous posts about IO caches. Now that I reread the article I see that I misread some parts.

That said. One could allocate a % of the physical memory available (at least on Winows). Some databases do this. That might explain why the memory usage is different on different spec'd machines.

_________________
FusekiLibrary, an opening library.
SGF converter tools: Wbaduk NGF to SGF | 440 go problems | Fuseki made easy | Tesuji made easy | Elementary training & Dan level testing | Dan Tutor Shortcut To Dan

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Do you think iTunes is bloated?
Post #102 Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:48 am 
Lives with ko
User avatar

Posts: 295
Location: Linz, Austria
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 44
Rank: EGF 4 kyu
GD Posts: 627
ross wrote:
Applications are free to allocate as much memory as they want, even if they never use it. For example, iTunes might really only need 10 MB of memory to operate normally, but it allocates 300 MB just for kicks. If you look at something like ps or Activity Monitor, you'll see 300 MB for its "Virtual" size, but probably 10 MB or less in the "Real" memory column. In fact, if it never uses that memory even once, it's not even written to swap.

But there's no easy way of distinguishing this scenario from the case where it's really using 300 MB on a regular basis, and the operating system just happened to swap to disk 290 MB of it.


Actually, that's easy: When the application allocates 300 MB and never touches it, the task manager will not show this in the real memory column. When the application uses 300 MB, it will be shown in the real memory column, regardless of swap.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Do you think iTunes is bloated?
Post #103 Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:57 am 
Lives with ko
User avatar

Posts: 295
Location: Linz, Austria
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 44
Rank: EGF 4 kyu
GD Posts: 627
kirkmc wrote:
The amount of VM an application allocates is _totally fictitious_, and I've never found a good explanation why some apps do that.


Because it's simpler, and it doesn't do any harm.

To be precise, it's usually not the application itself that requests memory it doesn't need. It's the memory manager of the application. That way, the memory manager can be implemented much more efficiently.

Take for example the Java VM (I know you don't like Java, but in terms of memory management, you can't get much more efficient than Java). It will always request the whole heap as virtual memory from the operating system, and rely on the fact that the physical memory is allocated on first use. That's because Java uses several optimizations that make memory management in general faster, but resizing the heap extremely slow. Because of that, virtual memory is allocated optimistically in order to reduce the chance that the heap has to be resized afterwards.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Do you think iTunes is bloated?
Post #104 Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:53 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1072
Location: Stratford-upon-Avon, England
Liked others: 33
Was liked: 72
Rank: 5K KGS
GD Posts: 1165
KGS: Dogen
flOvermind wrote:
kirkmc wrote:
The amount of VM an application allocates is _totally fictitious_, and I've never found a good explanation why some apps do that.


Because it's simpler, and it doesn't do any harm.

To be precise, it's usually not the application itself that requests memory it doesn't need. It's the memory manager of the application. That way, the memory manager can be implemented much more efficiently.

Take for example the Java VM (I know you don't like Java, but in terms of memory management, you can't get much more efficient than Java). It will always request the whole heap as virtual memory from the operating system, and rely on the fact that the physical memory is allocated on first use. That's because Java uses several optimizations that make memory management in general faster, but resizing the heap extremely slow. Because of that, virtual memory is allocated optimistically in order to reduce the chance that the heap has to be resized afterwards.


Hmm, that's interesting...

First, talk about bloated - when I run CGoban for a while (not right away on startup) it can take up to 300 MB of memory.

But I just launched it now, and it's "only" using 119 MB. VM is shown as 371 MB. So if I understand correctly, this doesn't match what you've said. Did you mean that the real memory and VM figures should match?

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Do you think iTunes is bloated?
Post #105 Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:40 am 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2508
Liked others: 1304
Was liked: 1128
Bad news Kirk, you've been scooped. The good news however is that the author appears to share at least some of your views.

smirk in MUCWORLD wrote:

Itoons – Bloatware? Who the f*** do they think they are?

Lately there has been some talk among a fringe group of itoons users, some of whom don't even own an i- anything, that the highly esteemed and universally loved itoons is bloated. What do they mean by bloated? Hard to say. They just blather on and on about functions they don't understand and then try to complicate the issue by going off on irrelevant technical tangents. Although some of them are software developers who proclaim to know more about the inner workings of a computer than a journalist such as myself who uses one every day, they fail to understand the basic fact of the matter: no matter what they say, I can argue with them until their lips are numb.

My research has shown that this stubborn and grumbling minority of 9 out of every 10, or a mere 9% of all computer users, typically own old black "laptops" that someone like you or I wouldn't be seen with in a junkyard. Goodness knows what they do with them and whether in fact they have a lifestyle at all. Probably they spend their evenings listening to "audiobooks" or playing "go." Don't they know that itoons can do that?

Apparently it is impossible to get it into some people's heads that a music player can and should do so much more than just play music, and that the good folks in Cupertino know how we like to do things better than we do ourselves. Although I have asked for people's honest opinions, some people just won't change their minds. If you are one of those sorry few who has sadly chosen a competitor's product, don't feel too bad - perfection is not the fare of the common curmudgeon. As to the rest of you, have no fear: we know what you think!



8-)

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.


This post by daal was liked by 4 people: Aphelion, averell, cdybeijing, ChradH
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Do you think iTunes is bloated?
Post #106 Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:44 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1072
Location: Stratford-upon-Avon, England
Liked others: 33
Was liked: 72
Rank: 5K KGS
GD Posts: 1165
KGS: Dogen
daal wrote:
Bad news Kirk, you've been scooped. The good news however is that the author appears to share at least some of your views.

smirk in MUCWORLD wrote:

Itoons – Bloatware? Who the f*** do they think they are?

Lately there has been some talk among a fringe group of itoons users, some of whom don't even own an i- anything, that the highly esteemed and universally loved itoons is bloated. What do they mean by bloated? Hard to say. They just blather on and on about functions they don't understand and then try to complicate the issue by going off on irrelevant technical tangents. Although some of them are software developers who proclaim to know more about the inner workings of a computer than a journalist such as myself who uses one every day, they fail to understand the basic fact of the matter: no matter what they say, I can argue with them until their lips are numb.

My research has shown that this stubborn and grumbling minority of 9 out of every 10, or a mere 9% of all computer users, typically own old black "laptops" that someone like you or I wouldn't be seen with in a junkyard. Goodness knows what they do with them and whether in fact they have a lifestyle at all. Probably they spend their evenings listening to "audiobooks" or playing "go." Don't they know that itoons can do that?

Apparently it is impossible to get it into some people's heads that a music player can and should do so much more than just play music, and that the good folks in Cupertino know how we like to do things better than we do ourselves. Although I have asked for people's honest opinions, some people just won't change their minds. If you are one of those sorry few who has sadly chosen a competitor's product, don't feel too bad - perfection is not the fare of the common curmudgeon. As to the rest of you, have no fear: we know what you think!



8-)



Ha!

Do you have a link for that? I can't find it via Google. Or did you just make it up...

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Do you think iTunes is bloated?
Post #107 Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:51 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 844
Liked others: 180
Was liked: 151
Rank: 3d
GD Posts: 422
KGS: komi
kirkmc wrote:
Do you have a link for that? I can't find it via Google. Or did you just make it up...


lol

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Do you think iTunes is bloated?
Post #108 Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:52 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1072
Location: Stratford-upon-Avon, England
Liked others: 33
Was liked: 72
Rank: 5K KGS
GD Posts: 1165
KGS: Dogen
quantumf wrote:
kirkmc wrote:
Do you have a link for that? I can't find it via Google. Or did you just make it up...


lol


You're a funny guy...

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Do you think iTunes is bloated?
Post #109 Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:53 am 
Dies with sente
User avatar

Posts: 106
Location: Germany
Liked others: 64
Was liked: 7
Rank: EGF 8k
Universal go server handle: ChradH
I guess I know why kirkmc doesn't like Pratchett.

_________________
To sig or not to sig, that is the question.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Do you think iTunes is bloated?
Post #110 Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:38 am 
Lives with ko
User avatar

Posts: 295
Location: Linz, Austria
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 44
Rank: EGF 4 kyu
GD Posts: 627
kirkmc wrote:
flOvermind wrote:
kirkmc wrote:
The amount of VM an application allocates is _totally fictitious_, and I've never found a good explanation why some apps do that.


Because it's simpler, and it doesn't do any harm.

To be precise, it's usually not the application itself that requests memory it doesn't need. It's the memory manager of the application. That way, the memory manager can be implemented much more efficiently.

Take for example the Java VM (I know you don't like Java, but in terms of memory management, you can't get much more efficient than Java). It will always request the whole heap as virtual memory from the operating system, and rely on the fact that the physical memory is allocated on first use. That's because Java uses several optimizations that make memory management in general faster, but resizing the heap extremely slow. Because of that, virtual memory is allocated optimistically in order to reduce the chance that the heap has to be resized afterwards.


Hmm, that's interesting...

First, talk about bloated - when I run CGoban for a while (not right away on startup) it can take up to 300 MB of memory.

But I just launched it now, and it's "only" using 119 MB. VM is shown as 371 MB. So if I understand correctly, this doesn't match what you've said. Did you mean that the real memory and VM figures should match?


That difference expected. If I remember correctly, the initial Java heap size in the client VM is 256 MB. Add in remembered sets of the garbage collector, stacks, code, memory used by the VM itself and so on, then 371 MB VM sounds about right. This is the memory that the Java VM reserved "just in case". It's not really used.

Real memory and VM should definitely not match for a Java application. That would mean the reserved heap is almost full, making the job of the garbage collector harder and decreasing performance. Normally the heap size is increased when it reaches 80% fill level. The VM always likes to keep some reserved, but not used memory lying around for performance reasons, relying on the OS to not actually allocate it.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Do you think iTunes is bloated?
Post #111 Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:41 am 
Dies with sente
User avatar

Posts: 92
Location: シアトル
Liked others: 24
Was liked: 36
Rank: DGS 9k
GD Posts: 1315
flOvermind wrote:
ross wrote:
Applications are free to allocate as much memory as they want, even if they never use it. For example, iTunes might really only need 10 MB of memory to operate normally, but it allocates 300 MB just for kicks. If you look at something like ps or Activity Monitor, you'll see 300 MB for its "Virtual" size, but probably 10 MB or less in the "Real" memory column. In fact, if it never uses that memory even once, it's not even written to swap.

But there's no easy way of distinguishing this scenario from the case where it's really using 300 MB on a regular basis, and the operating system just happened to swap to disk 290 MB of it.


Actually, that's easy: When the application allocates 300 MB and never touches it, the task manager will not show this in the real memory column. When the application uses 300 MB, it will be shown in the real memory column, regardless of swap.

I was under the impression that RSIZE (or "Resident Memory") only showed what was using physical RAM, not memory that was "in use" but swapped out to disk. Some quick Googling seems to confirm. Is that not the case?

kirkmc wrote:
This said, you're still complaining about an app running slowly on a machine which is way under spec: Mac OS X calls for a minimum of 1 GB RAM.

That's only for Leopard; Tiger has a minimum requirement of 256 MB. But that's orthogonal to all the points I made in my original post, none of which were that "it runs slowly".

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Do you think iTunes is bloated?
Post #112 Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:18 pm 
Lives with ko
User avatar

Posts: 295
Location: Linz, Austria
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 44
Rank: EGF 4 kyu
GD Posts: 627
ross wrote:
I was under the impression that RSIZE (or "Resident Memory") only showed what was using physical RAM, not memory that was "in use" but swapped out to disk. Some quick Googling seems to confirm. Is that not the case?


Ah, yes, my bad. I mistakenly assumed that RSIZE is the real memory, but of course it is the resident memory, meaning without swapped out memory. There is a "swap" column that's supposed to show the swapped memory of a process, but the numbers shown in it don't add up with the total swapped memory in the system...

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group