Are we sure it's a bad thing when RAM usage goes up?

[kirstein]

I'm reading lots of people trying to figure out how to keep RAM usage down. What I'm wondering is if that's really productive. Seems to me that as long as the OS properly manages it, it should be OK if RAM usage get into the 90% range.

If the OS is using RAM to cache commonly used chunks of code, and if it has a decent routine for freeing up RAM as needed, what's the problem. It could actually slow things down to keep purging RAM.

I'll admit I don't know much about what's going on in the kernel or exactly why RAM usage grows over time. Is there anyone who has dug deep enough into the system to know for sure what's going on in there?

[kern417]

my RAM doesn't go down automatically. what do you mean by freeing up RAM? i have to use a seperate software to do that periodically (cleanRAM)

[Rgamer84]

I think where you might start to notice problems is when you are at 90% usage and then you try to load something like opera. It will start spitting out memory errors kind of like you were on a mogul trying to run it. Another reason to keep memory low is if you play any games on the tp2. Games need all of the memory that they can get to run smoothly. That probably isn't the specific answer that you want but its the first few reasons that i can think of to keep the memory clean.

[Malatesta]

Originally Posted by kern417

my RAM doesn't go down automatically. what do you mean by freeing up RAM? i have to use a seperate software to do that periodically (cleanRAM)

Sure it does, you just don't let it get low enough.

WM6.x has RAM management built in: when it reaches a certain threshold, it shuts down programs based on a priority system--so things like Outlook are high priority and rarely will be shut down, over say a dialog screen or Settings.

This threshold value and memory level are changeable I believe via the registry.

To the OP: I agree. People put way, way, way too much emphasis on "free RAM".

Fact is, a system with 15mb of free RAM will perform the same as a device with 100mb of free RAM, makes no difference. I've run the Treo Pro with 38mb of free RAM on boot and WM6.5--fast as ever and you don't notice it. Sure, if you run Opera Mobile, Skype, TwitToday, etc. more RAM is better. But even then, the system itself does not perform any faster.

Confession: I don't manage my memory. I don't use "free ram" tools and never look at how much I have. This is non-sense and a waste of users time, imo. Especially with WM6.5 which has more VM and better memory management.

Now on custom ROMs, sometimes it is nice to know, only because you want to know what is running in the background--after all, background programs and processes take up RAM and CPU cycles. But if it is due to physical RAM or what the OS allots and not background apps, then the actual amount is trivial to the user experience.

That's why I jam up my glyphcache and system cache sizes--they eat RAM but make the OS zippier. I can care less about RAM.

[krohnjw]

Originally Posted by kern417

my RAM doesn't go down automatically. what do you mean by freeing up RAM? i have to use a seperate software to do that periodically (cleanRAM)

He means that the memory manager will properly expire/dirty unused pages and allow them to be swapped out when those pages are needed.

Proper caching (and even precaching) can be quite helpful in speeding up application loading/performance, but you do need a memory manager that will allow the appropriate amount of memory to be freed when needed, especially for applications with large footprints. If the memory manager doesn't allow this precached memory to be freed when not used or needed or doesn't free enough you'll see OOM errors.

This appears to be what HTC wanted to do with ResProxy - allow the precaching/caching or resources - but people reported that they were getting OOM errors when the memory usage climbed too high.

Originally Posted by Malatesta

Fact is, a system with 15mb of free RAM will perform the same as a device with 100mb of free RAM, makes no difference.

Well it will assuming you don't load something that needs > 15 MB of RAM, but the point is 100% correct. Assuming enough memory is free to load the application in question having N free or 10N free makes no difference from a speed perspective. Only when the memory has to become actively managed (pages dirtied and swapped to disk or swapped out and replaced) would you see a slow down.

Originally Posted by Malatesta

Confession: I don't manage my memory. I don't use "free ram" tools and never look at how much I have. This is non-sense and a waste of users time, imo.

...snip....

That's why I jam up my glyphcache and system cache sizes--they eat RAM but make the OS zippier. I can care less about RAM.

100% agree here - I'd rather have a snappier performance for day to day use - I also don't run out of memory. I don't know what everyone is loading but it's clearly a lot more than I use - from the above post it appears "games" is the answer. Euchre isn't very taxing on the old memory it seems

[Aleki]

I have yet to have my TP2 lock up in 6.5. I do reset it out of old habits, but most of the time its because of uninstalling or installing apps that require resets. I notice with 85% usage, the phone is actually snappier than it is originally at bootup

edit: one of the guys from the apple store wanted to see my phone (probably trying to spot an error so he can knock WM). ram usage was at 88% and the phone was moving along very smoothly with everything ready to go. after a few minutes of casual talk, and him playing with it, he handed it back to me with a mildly frustrated expression on his face

[kirstein]

Great discussion, this is exactly what I was thinking. I'd rather be properly using 95% of the memory and have things loaded and ready to go than keep it sitting at 39% and have to constantly reload things every time I open something. Sometimes it seems like it's a competition to get the lowest RAM number.

[i360]

Originally Posted by Rgamer84

I think where you might start to notice problems is when you are at 90% usage and then you try to load something like opera. It will start spitting out memory errors kind of like you were on a mogul trying to run it. Another reason to keep memory low is if you play any games on the tp2. Games need all of the memory that they can get to run smoothly. That probably isn't the specific answer that you want but its the first few reasons that i can think of to keep the memory clean.

This is correct.

This is why I run RAM Sweeper periodically throughout the day. And also use Task Manager to close programs that are not being used or won't use for awhile. This helps improve battery life to have programs and tasks completely closed and out of memory...

It's an old habit since I'm a PC Gamer and always look for performance overall.

[Malatesta]

Originally Posted by i360

This is correct.

This is why I run RAM Sweeper periodically throughout the day. And also use Task Manager to close programs that are not being used or won't use for awhile. This helps improve battery life to have programs and tasks completely closed and out of memory...

It's an old habit since I'm a PC Gamer and always look for performance overall.

I've never been convinced of this argument that programs sitting in memory, but not consuming CPU cycles, deplete battery life significantly or even at all.

Anyone care to give a detailed argument from a programming/engineering perspective to actually back this up? Because I think it's crap. Seems to be an old habit carried over from the WM2003 days with little evidence. I also hope for the sake of the OS it is not true because that is just awful to make the consumer manger their devices---the exact opposite reasoning give by Microsoft for having apps minimize and not close.

So, on realizing that users shouldn’t have to manage their memory, we set about doing it for them. We made our shell watch how much memory was being used and close apps when more was needed. We made many of our apps remember their state when they were closed so that they could reload it again when they were opened (so users couldn’t really tell that they had ever been shut down). We taught ISVs how to do the same thing. And we removed the close box from all of our apps.

--Windows Mobile Team Blog

It's a sad state that WinMo users feel they have to waste time managing their memory throughout the day. This is the opposite of "smartphone" and I think it is misguided.

[krohnjw]

Originally Posted by Malatesta

I've never been convinced of this argument that programs sitting in memory, but not consuming CPU cycles, deplete battery life significantly or even at all.

Anyone care to give a detailed argument from a programming/engineering perspective to actually back this up? Seems to be an old habit carried over from the WM2003 days with little evidence. I also hope for the sake of the OS it is not true because that is just awful to make the consumer manger their devices---the exact opposite reasoning give by Microsoft for having apps minimize and not close.

Well, if the app is polling on any sort of interval for hardware status or other info then it will use resources (the amount of resources used will obviously depend on the hardware being queried). If it is truly sitting idle and only operating on its own data set or info then it shouldn't be using any additional resources by merely being open.