mac OS Catalina using much more ram comparing to High Sierra and Mojave

[edubfromktown]

I find in other post

macOS Catalina: Loads of Crapware Chewing up Memory and Sometimes CPU Cycles, Adobe Does it Too

macOS Catalina: Loads of Crapware Chewing up Memory and Sometimes CPU

macperformanceguide.com

Not so sure about that site.

Can't really comment on the processes running in Catalina... not totally surprised. It is easy to create a script to run at startup that disables whatever processes you choose to via terminal / command line interface.

As for Adobe- this is one of the reasons I run only LR 6.14 perpetual (migrated from a Mojave install because the LR installer is 32-bit and won't run on Catalina). Adobe app development, QC and testing across many of their products has been unwieldy and painful (at home and in the enterprise) for many years.

Also why I do not run any cloud drive syncing to Box, Google Drive or elsewhere. I manually post any files up to where they need to be (plus remove them when they are no longer needed) and backup all of my systems locally on external direct and LAN-attached storage.

 

[timidpimpin]

Here's what I don't get... that someone with such a modern and powerful system with 64GB RAM has no idea how that tech works, or how to harness it.

 

[chabig]

I find in other post...

You aren't paying attention to the people really trying to help you. RAM is meant to be used. Did you pay good money for 64GB of RAM hoping not to use it? The operating system will use as much as it needs to make your machine operate as efficiently as possible. It is not in your best interest to minimize RAM use, and users (that's you and all of us) are not intended to be RAM managers. That's the job of the operating system.

 

[ewu]

You aren't paying attention to the people really trying to help you. RAM is meant to be used. Did you pay good money for 64GB of RAM hoping not to use it? The operating system will use as much as it needs to make your machine operate as efficiently as possible. It is not in your best interest to minimize RAM use, and users (that's you and all of us) are not intended to be RAM managers. That's the job of the operating system.

I read every message within this post. I appreciate their post. But I don't agree with them.

from what I see, Catalina has kind of 'Memory-Leak' behaviour which I never see in Mojave and High Sierra. I believe Apple redesign kernel of Mac os but it is still not ready to be robust.

and I raise lots of evidences to support my idea as well.

 

[konqerror]

That is not correct – not at all.

That is completely true. In fact, under the UNIX 64-bit programming model (LP64) that macOS uses, the long datatype is also expanded to 64 bits, so you pay extra for non-pointers as well. (Windows uses a more efficient model, LLP64, in which only pointers expand).

This increased memory pressure is why Linux developed a special ABI which shrinks addressing down to 32 bits, while retaining the other x86-64 advantages. As noted, they found that 64 bit addressing alone costs you on average 5-8% of performance, with worst-case being as much as 40%.

x32 ABI - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[timidpimpin]

Just run 3-4 tabs in Chrome

I read every message within this post. I appreciate their post. But I don't agree with them.

from what I see, Catalina has kind of 'Memory-Leak' behaviour which I never see in Mojave and High Sierra. I believe Apple redesign kernel of Mac os but it is still not ready to be robust.

and I raise lots of evidences to support my idea as well.

Again... with all due respect... your understanding of modern computers is wrong and also very dated. CPU's hit a bit of a wall a few years ago, and so many modern operating do whatever they can to compensate for that.

Using more real RAM will always equal little to no virtual memory reliance, and in turn keep the system snappy instead of laggy.

 

[evec]

That is completely true. In fact, under the UNIX 64-bit programming model (LP64) that macOS uses, the long datatype is also expanded to 64 bits, so you pay extra for non-pointers as well. (Windows uses a more efficient model, LLP64, in which only pointers expand).

This increased memory pressure is why Linux developed a special ABI which shrinks addressing down to 32 bits, while retaining the other x86-64 advantages. As noted, they found that 64 bit addressing alone costs you on average 5-8% of performance, with worst-case being as much as 40%.

x32 ABI - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

x32_abi is elder for x86 platform, currently 64bit CPU run optimum under 64bit environment, the shrinks address is not useful for current CPU, it is not true 64 bit address with cost because the CPU with hardware memory access without run by CPU cycle.
currently most of programming language default integer value is 64bit, which mean fully optimum under 64bit, even you complied for 32bit , the int is real transfer down to long.

One of the reason some people thing of abi faster because it smaller pointers come with smaller program size so it run faster, it true may be a little, but macOS with memory compression so no advantage can be take in current OSX.

even come back to the x32_abi day is not fully true:

Debunking x32 myths

There has been many comments on my previous post about the new x32 ABI; some are interesting, others…

flameeyes.blog

 

[meme1255]

The RAM management in 10.15 is… flawed.

You can easily test this for yourself. Shoot i.e. 64 GB worth of images with iPhone/whatever, and start to import in Bridge or whatever. Keep an eye on the activity monitor while importing, and note the import speed.

Cache will build up continuosly, as the OS thinks it is wise to hold on to the RAW files in RAM. Once total memory hits installed RAM, the OS will start to ”compress” and swap, and you will see the import speed crawl to a halt. The OS will keep on prioritizing cache, and use more and more swap to keep it this way.

This is NOT normal. It is a design flaw.

Now start Photoshop and Illustrator to work with your images, and the situation will be absurd, as the OS will continue to retain the cache and shrink the available RAM for applications and documents further. All that RAM you installed is used to keep useless files in memory.

If swap is used, your RAM is too low. But even if you have a fair amount of RAM, Mac OS will not use it efficiently, but prefer to swap rather than get rid of stale cache. This never ever happens in Linux, which will ditch cache before using swap.

 

[827538]

64-bit apps take up more of everything ... disk space, RAM, CPU cycles.

You do realize that properly optimized 64bit software can actually use LESS cycles on the CPU to perform the same task, transfer data etc. ARM made some big improvements with their ARMv8 instruction set in this regard.
As for using up more disk space and RAM it is possible but the difference is usually negligible and the benefits from being able to address more than 4GB are massive. 32bit software, hardware and operating systems are dated technology and long past time to be made redundant.

 

[sequential design]

The RAM management in 10.15 is… flawed.

You can easily test this for yourself. Shoot i.e. 64 GB worth of images with iPhone/whatever, and start to import in Bridge or whatever. Keep an eye on the activity monitor while importing, and note the import speed.

Cache will build up continuosly, as the OS thinks it is wise to hold on to the RAW files in RAM. Once total memory hits installed RAM, the OS will start to ”compress” and swap, and you will see the import speed crawl to a halt. The OS will keep on prioritizing cache, and use more and more swap to keep it this way.

This is NOT normal. It is a design flaw.

Now start Photoshop and Illustrator to work with your images, and the situation will be absurd, as the OS will continue to retain the cache and shrink the available RAM for applications and documents further. All that RAM you installed is used to keep useless files in memory.

If swap is used, your RAM is too low. But even if you have a fair amount of RAM, Mac OS will not use it efficiently, but prefer to swap rather than get rid of stale cache. This never ever happens in Linux, which will ditch cache before using swap.

Did Catalina ever improve in this area?

 

[sequential design]

I tested Catalina's RAM management today. Everything is fine. it was late in the morning when I posted my last message, so I didn't test it myself, but, now that I have, I can see that everything is working well. RAM is released back to the system quickly and, when the swap should not be used, it isn't.

Catalina takes RAM quickly (as it should) and uses it properly by discarding it when appropriate.