Memory counts much?

I twice tried Aperture on my old 24" iMac with a whole gig of memory, and always found it too slow and therefore frustrating. But yesterday my new 27 incher arrived, with 4 gigs and I thought I'd give Aperture another try.
For an export of 100 RAW pix to JPG:
Old iMac/LightRoom: 592 secs
New iMac/LightRoom:252 secs
New iMac/Aperture: 215 secs
So Aperture is 2.75x faster than my old iMac benchmark, and rather faster than LightRoom on the new iMac. Pretty pleased, and, I think, rapidly becoming an Aperture convert.
But I'm just about to order 8 gigs of extra RAM, and I have a question which I don't really find a good answer to: does extra memory really help Aperture? I've read it doesn't use more than 4, but I've also read the more memory the faster it is. What to believe?
What do users really think please?
Alan

Each installation is unique. 4gb may be enough for one user but not enough for another. All depends on how you use your machine.
Here's a quick way to get an idea if more memory will be a help:
# reboot you system
# log in and start Activity Monitor (located in the Utilities folder)
# Looking at Activity Monitors Memory Usage view you'll see a pie chart and at the bottom page stats. At this point the chart should be mostly green and the *Page Outs:" stat should be 0 unless you have a bunch of stuff starting at login.
# Select *View->Dock Icon->Memory Usage* and close the Activity Monitor window. The icon dock will show the pie chart.
# Use your machine as you normally do. Every now and then open Activity Monitor and glance at the *Page Outs*. Three possibilities it could stay at 0, it might jump up and then not change anymore or else it could be increasing.
First case very good more memory won;t by you anything. Second case you had a momentary memory shortfall but then things leveled out. More memory probably won't buy you to much unless you perform the same sequence that caused the shortfall regularly. Third case more memory will definitely help.
In my case I have a early 2010 iMac 21.5 inch. I keep a lot of things open during the day. Mail, Safari, Terminal windows always. I'm in and out of Aperture, Emacs and a few other things. Going from 4gb to 8 may a huge difference when I started using Aperture on a regular bases.
If you'll only have Aperture open when you;re using it 4gb should be enough but if you run multiple apps you'll probably want to expand.

Similar Messages

Is it possible to upgrade my macbook air 13" from 1.86 GHz 128 gb flash and 2GB memory to the 2.13 GHz 256 and 4GB memory, how much would it cost?

Is it possible to upgrade my macbook air 13" from 1.86 GHz 128 gb flash and 2GB memory to the 2.13 GHz 256 and 4GB memory, how much would it cost?

About the only thing that "might" be able to do is upgrade the SSD. OWC sells SSD upgrades for that unit. You would have to contact Apple though to verify that no warranty issues would apply when making the upgrade.

My macbook pro currently has 2gb memory how much will two more increase perfomance?

my macbook pro currently has 2gb memory how much will two more increase perfomance? (capacity is 4)

Here is the system specs can i get up to 8 on this machine?
Also I run Adobe cs5 and final cut if that makes any difference?
Model Name:          MacBook Pro
Model Identifier:          MacBookPro5,1
Processor Name:          Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed:          2.4 GHz
Number of Processors:          1
Total Number of Cores:          2
L2 Cache:          3 MB
Memory:          2 GB
Bus Speed:          1.07 GHz
Boot ROM Version:          MBP51.007E.B06
SMC Version (system):          1.41f2

Wired memory counts up to 100%, how to find unknown process leaking memory

Hi,
On my Macbook Pro 2011, 8GB wired memory counts up to 100% over a period of 4-5 regular usage days. The more I use the macbook, the more wired memory grows until I have to restart again, otherwise the machine becomes slow because it uses the harddrive for memory. This is not normal behavior!
Attached is a screenshot of the activity monitor. I'm not able to identify the process which leaks the wired memory.
I had once an eyeopening experience: I was about to restart my macbook totally overloaded by wired memory but then I canceled the shutdown because of some reason. Some of the processes and programmes were already terminated and SURPRISE, the wired memory was down to 10%! The 8 Gb were all of a sudden shared by free, active and inactive memory, as it should be! So some process was terminated during shutdown which caused the leak and even freed all of the wired memory. I did work with the macbook for 2 more days without any memory problem. Once I restarted, the leaking problem started again.
My gut-feeling says the hole problem started when I installed VM Ware Fusion a while ago. But I did a clean uninstall.
The solution could be to identify the leaking process, but how should I do this? It is also not clear to me wether wired memory is real, virtual, private or shared memory displayed in the activity monitor. Is there any tool which identify memory leaks?
According to g_wolfman, the only process with a hugh difference between real and virtual memory is the kernel_task and the many Chrome Renderer processes. I have always 30 tabs open in chrome plus Safari (Flash disabled). I'm not able to terminate the kernel_task of course.
Is there any way to isolate the troublesome process? There is no save start mode like in Microsoft Windows possible? This would be the first think I would do, checking if the problem persists in save mode.
Disabled every start login objects btw.
See in the image the amount of wired memory compared to the processes which are active. This is NOT the smart memory management OSX is capable of.

Any suggestion? Is my system doomed to bleed to death every 3-4 days, until memory went 100% red (wired)? I would expect OS X to be smart enough to indicate memory leakers. I really do not get it.
I migrated the same settings and applications to my freshly installed (10.7.4) 2007 Macbook. There the majority of RAM is active not wired.
The only big difference is: On my 2011 Macbook Pro was VMWARE Fusion installed.

No memory count - no bios detail display??

Just installed a new Neo2-PLS board. On power up, after the graphics card info, there is no display of any memory count (have a Cosair 512MB in channel A). Also, no BIOS details at all...just goes into the MSI display screen after a short while (1-2 mins) and then a list of Safe mode/boot normally/last good config.... came up & then restart again.
Anyone encounter that?

I think you merely need to turn off the boot logo. If I understand what you're describing, all you need to do is hit delete as soon as the MSI screen comes up. This will get you into the BIOS; there's an option in there to turn the splash screen off.

To anybody that can answer this my iMac has 4gb memory how much faster would it be if i installed 16gb???

to anybody that can answer this my iMac has 4gb memory how much faster would it be if i installed 16gb???

Use activity moinot to view your typical usage, using this article as a guide:
Using Activity Monitor to read System Memory and determine how much RAM is being used
How much Green is in the pie chart?
How much green plus Blue is in the pie chart?
How much PageOuts since last Restart?
How much current PageOuts in bytes/sec (number in parentheses)?

Memory allocation much more than size of table TST03

Hi all,
I found a strange situation, in our system, memory allocation in SP12 shows 2GB is used in DB side, but when I go to transaction DB02 to check the table TST03, it only has 50MB. Our parameter rspo/store_location is already set to 'db'.
System environment is: ECC6 running on AIX 53/Oracle 10g, 64bit.
In my opinion, temse data will be stored in TST03, so I think TST03 size should be larger than memory allocation result in SP12.
Could you please help me about this?
Thanks and regards

Hi Justin
Nice question, really made me think. I just checked, in the newer SAP versions, TST03 has a BLOB column, in the older versions there was a LONG RAW col.
I bet you have the BLOB (ECC6), you can check in sqlplus:
[code]SQL> desc sapsr3.tst03
Name                                      Null?    Type
DCLIENT                                   NOT NULL VARCHAR2(9)
DNAME                                     NOT NULL VARCHAR2(60)
DPART                                     NOT NULL NUMBER(5)
DROWNO                                    NOT NULL NUMBER(10)
DDATALEN                                  NOT NULL NUMBER(5)
DCONTENT                                           BLOB[/code]
A lob column is stored in a seperate segment:
[code]SQL> select SEGMENT_NAME from dba_lobs where table_name = 'TST03';
SEGMENT_NAME
SYS_LOB0000031954C00006$$[/code]
Just replace your segment_name to get the size, you can enter the segment in DB02 too:
[code]SQL> select BYTES/1024/1024 "SIZE_MB" from dba_segments where segment_name = 'SYS_LOB0000031954C00006$$';
   SIZE_MB
        12[/code]
Regards
Michael

Warp stabilizer counting much more frames than actually exists...

Hello, everyone!
I've just installed Premiere CC 2014 and I'm having problems with Warp Stabilizer... I'm trying to use it in clip with 25s and 24fps, but when I click "Analyze" it shows 1035764 frames! Also, it will take 2560 minutes to analyze it all! Doing the math, it should have only something like 600 frames and take much less time...
I know this stabilizer is very buggy, but I couldn't find a solution for this. Can anyone help me?
Thanks in advance!

Well, for some random reason, if I replace each file for itself the bug disappear, i had to do this one by one. If anyone have the same problem, try doing this.
This solves the problem for now, but it took some time to discover and to solve it. Hope it doesn't happen again.

MacBook Pro with the memory too much used by ReportCrash ...

Suddenly disk space has decreased rapidly

The cause of this problem was due to an incompatibility between NODE32 V 4.0.5x and my MacBook Pro, OS X Mountain Lion (10.8.3).
I solved it with a new version of NODE32 (ESET Cyber Security) V 5.0.108.0.
To delete the huge log files that had accumoled during the repeated crash of the previous version of NODE32, I used alternately OnyX and Trash.It!, Especially the second it was very useful.
cheers
giorgioran

How much memory can I put in?

Mine is a 24", Early 2008 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 4 B 800 MHz DDR2 SDRAM for memory, how much can it handle? w/Yosemite 10.10 & 2 2G right now.

Add a 4GB chip.
The 2 places I’ve seen recommended most to buy reliable RAM are below. I have purchased RAM several times from Other World Computing and have always been very satisfied with the product and service. They have on-line instructions on how to replace the RAM. OWC has also tested RAM above what Apple states is the maximum. I now have 6GB installed on a machine supposedly limited to 4 GB.
Crucial
Other World Computing

Memory management count

Hello all,
I have a general inquiry on keeping the memory count in regards to memory management. Suppose my set routine is this (which I believe is the general set routine, save for checking that the new input does not equal the current value):
-(void)setVariable:(id)newValue{
[[variable release]];
[[newValue retain]];
Variable = newValue;
1. Assuming 'newValue' has not been retained or allocated elsewhere, it's count here is 1. Is that right?
2. Is the count of 'variable' also 1? We didn't actually retain 'variable'. But what it's pointing to is retained. I am unsure how the count is kept. Who get's the extra 1? 'variable' or 'newValue'?
Message was edited by: rpstro02
Message was edited by: rpstro02

Keep in mind that the variables you're dealing with here are pointers to objects. And that it's the actual objects that have a retainCount, not the pointers.
So when you do:
[newValue retain];
... it's whatever object newValue is pointing to that gets an incremented retainCount... not the newValue pointer itself.
Then when you do:
variable = newValue;
... now you've just made your "variable" pointer point to the _same object_ that newValue is pointing to. There's only one retainCount involved. So there is not an "extra 1" if I'm understanding that part of your question correctly.
Steve

All agentless monitored servers showing same percent memory used

I have 13 servers that are managed agentless via a proxy agent on the gateway server. I do this as when I had them set up to use the agent, the agent was consuming too much CPU on the servers. So, all appears to be fine, it is pulling in the percent CPU
usage and such, and recognizes the OS version and what not. The issue I have, is I set up a dashboard with a performance widget to track the percent memory used. All of my agentless monitored servers show the same percentage, and the percentage is also much
higher than what I see on the actual servers. So, it appears that there may be some form of roll up or something on the agentless servers, or it's taking the highest from the group, or I'm not drilling into the right counter or something. I have two widgets,
one that is performance and one that is performance object. The performance one grabs the object "Memory", counter of "PercentMemoryUsed", with no performance instance selected (although I have also tried "all"). The performance
object widget selects the same performance counter (Memory / PercentMemoryUsed /) and again have also tried "all" there as well. This allows the performance widget to graph/show the last value and maximum value, while the performance object shows
me the average sorted from highest to lowest. I have another server that is agent managed in the same list, that shows what appears to be accurate information...and there is also a performance counter for cpu usage that appears to have accurate data for all
of the above (agent and agentless). So, why am I seeing this issue with my agentless servers?
mpleaf

This is a link on what is officially possible in SCOM 2012 with agentless monitoring:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh212910.aspx
You may use snmp to capture memory:
http://www.oidview.com/mibs/311/md-311-1.html
Using custom script of WMI model to obtain required utilization
memory usage:
http://forum.sysinternals.com/ram-memory-usage-how_topic21061.html

Lightroom and Vista....Any workaround for memory? - Cause it's slow

I've searched all over for a soution.   I can not tolerate the lack of responsiveness that Lightroom 3 has when it comes to working on my RAW files.   Here's my system info...bear in mind that I was working on 1 NEF file
Lightroom version: 3.0 [677000]
Operating system: Windows Vista Home Edition Service Pack 2 (Build 6002)
Version: 6.0 [6002]
Application architecture: x86
System architecture: x86
Physical processor count: 4
Processor speed: 2.6 GHz
Built-in memory: 3070.5 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 716.8 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 993.1 MB (138.5%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 1115.8 MB
Memory cache size: 0.0 MB
System DPI setting: 96 DPI
Desktop composition enabled: Yes
That's a quad core with 3GB of memory however, Vista only makes 700mb of memory available for lightroom and as you can see, processiong one raw file puts me at over the allocated memory.   Lightroom 3 System requirements call for 2MB of available RAM. I surpass that but the system requirements don't seem to take into account the Vista memory allocation issue.
Is there a way, that anyone is aware of, to allocate more memory to lightroom 3? I can not work at this pace. I can't even export the processed image as a full size jpg because I get the "not enough memory" error message in lightroom.   I disable all uneeded processes when running lightroom by the way which includes turning off anti-virus. I usually have my laptop running on the corner of my desk in the event I need to look something up on the web.
This has become unusable in this current state. Is this a Vista flaw, a lightroom flaw or a combination of both. Is anyone aware of a workaround to this issue?
Thanks to all that respond.
Fulvio

As stated elsethread, 32-bit Windows operating systems can address 4Gb of memory. In general, out of the box installs will allow user processes 2Gb of that. So Lr has access to 2Gb for the static application and for the memory it uses at run time. This 2Gb also has to be shared by other processes, so the OS provides virtual memory to let applications grow as necessary, up to that 4Gb limit.
There are tricks for giving user processes more memory, but there is often a trade-off because of the way Windows segments this memory. One of the trade-offs is that access to the other chunk of memory is much slower, though not as slow as paging. There are other gotchas, too.
What other processes are using up real memory? Which ones demand to be paged in from virtual memory (which could slow down other applications like Lr)?
So, Lr will use memory if the memory manager can give it memory, but it really has to take what it gets. And some operations are memory intensive, especially on larger raw files. If the memory Lr is using is being paged, it can result in perceptually slow application performance.
I'd start with firing up Vista with very little running. Exit all user applications, and kill services you don't need when working with photos, like real-time anti-virus protection (most of which are nothing more than a panacea that eat up resources and slow down the entire OS) and the search index stuff (which is basically broken until Windows 7) and stuff like that.
Make sure you make a large raw cache, and put the raw cache on a fast disk that is not the same as the one where your previews are. Buy a cheap drive and format it NTFS just for this purpose, if you have to. Disk space is cheap, and it can act as a backup for your photos on import. Get rid of all the video/sound/whatever driver cruft that is not the just the drivers. nVidia, et al, love to install toolbar cruft that gives you nothing except higher CPU and memory usage. You might want to create a new user account that is as clean a possible with all this stuff disabled or removed.
Lr /can/ work ok in a limited 32-bit environment, but you might have to tune the system a little.

Memory Usage And Hard Drive Activity Increase After Latest Upgrade

I have upgraded to Firefox 3.6.15 and latest Adobe Flash Player. Then i noticed that plugin-container started to take a lot of memory as much as Firefox itself totaling around 600Mb. Then i see hard drive activity intermittently slowing down my laptop and making it unresponsive for a short period of time. I have 50 tabs open. I have disabled Flash and since then plugin-container takes very little memory and i don't see consistent hard drive activity.
I need Flash and i don't want to disable it. Is there a solution to this?

I am seeking solutions for same problem. When playing simple online games such as solitaire my memory usage for the plug in container is 300-600 mb while FireFox may only be 80-120 (with several windows or tabs open of mostly text pages). If I disable Adobe add-ons memory usage is greatly reduced. If I understood correctly it is possible to disable the plugin container and run adobe via the old method and another user thought that would solve the problem. I do not understand how it would make a difference but if you havent found a solution you may want to try it. See these 2 threads in the Mozilla forum:
A question and brief explanation and how to disable plugin container in config
I've previously had problems with Adobe crashing Firefox . At least now with Adobe being in the plugin container Firefox does not crash along with it.
I have another issue - I can sometimes still hear the music from a game after I have exited the game and closed the window. I would like to know how to release the resources used by Adobe - kind of like FireFox's RamBack.
Well, good luck to you (and me!)

High Virtual memory usage when using Pages 2.0.2

Hey there,
I was just wondering whether there had been any other reports of unusually high memory usage when using Pages 2.0.2, specifically Virtual memory. I am running iWork 06 on the Mac listed below and Pages has been running really slowly recently. I checked the Activity Monitor and Pages is using hardly any Physical memory but loads of Virtual memory (so much so that the Page outs are almost as high as the Page ins (roughly 51500 page ins / 51000 page outs).
Any known problems, solutions or comments for this problem? Thanks in advance

I don't know if this is specifically what you're seeing, but all Cocoa applications, such as Pages, have an effectively infinite Undo. If you have any document that you've been working on for a long time without closing, that could be responsible for a large amount of memory usage.
While it's good practice to save on a regular basis, if you're making large amounts of changes it's also a good idea to close and reopen your document every once in awhile, simply to clear the undo. I've heard of some people seeing sluggish behavior after working on a document for several days, which cleared up when the document was closed and reopened.
Titanium PowerBook Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Memory counts much?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for