VoidPup RAM consumption - is this normal?

[yuki]

Hi, good afternoon, I just downloaded the latest version of VoidPup64 [22.02.240907] to test it because I heard was extremely fast and very light, consuming very little RAM, but I find that at startup, it is already consuming almost 600 MB and with the Firefox browser running it goes to 1.1 GB ... the truth is I do not know if this consumption is natural, because in EASY, with the browser running and 3 tabs open, consumption is 650 MB.

Is this amount of RAM normal?.

[Jasper]

@yuki

Yes, that sounds about right to me.

Browsers do tend to use a fair amount of RAM.

Browser-RAM.png (76.69 KiB) Viewed 405 times

In this screenshot using the application Byobu, the 'green' box shows the percentage of RAM being used ........... with a browser open.

Byobu.png (32.36 KiB) Viewed 403 times

[Clarity]

The topic of RAM discussion continues to crop up in the forum. But, for me RAM use or under-use or over-use is meaningless unless it is impacting performance.

Questions

• Is VoidPUP64 producing a performance problem?

• Why is it being evaluated against another distro?

I have no problems, thus far in my testing as performance is swift and apps operate quickly both emerging to desktop when clicked/started as well as responding quickly in execution.

Thanks @peebee in your continuing help with your productions for us members and users.

[Jasper]

I find VoidPup64 a great distro to use

It is a rolling release with security updates, up to date software packages available and a LTS kernel.

A plus for me is the ability to load/unload SFS applications.

Also, bear in mind browser extensions will add to the RAM use too.

@Clarity is right to point out that you should not be comparing 'apples to oranges'

[yuki]

The topic of RAM discussion continues to crop up in the forum. But, for me RAM use or under-use or over-use is meaningless unless it is impacting performance.

Questions

• Is VoidPUP64 producing a performance problem?

• Why is it being evaluated against another distro?

I have no problems, thus far in my testing as performance is swift and apps operate quickly both emerging to desktop when clicked/started as well as responding quickly in execution.

Thanks @peebee in your continuing help with your productions for us members and users.

Hello, good evening; the answer to both questions I consider that it would be very long for a space as short as this, but I'll try to be brief: 1.- for me, Puppy is an alternative for older computers [like the one I have for testing], so with high RAM consumption I have performance problems and 2. - with all due respect and without any desire to polemicize, if the RAM consumption that I mentioned in my question, are normal in this distro, we would be talking about higher consumption than the native distro [from which it derives], so it would be wiser to install VOID, with LXQT desktop and it would be below.

[yuki]

I find VoidPup64 a great distro to use

It is a rolling release with security updates, up to date software packages available and a LTS kernel.

A plus for me is the ability to load/unload SFS applications.

Also, bear in mind browser extensions will add to the RAM use too.

@Clarity is right to point out that you should not be comparing 'apples to oranges'

Actually, I don't quite understand what you mean by the phrase 'comparing apples and pears', I'm simply mentioning that it's resource intensive, it couldn't be classified as lightweight, which is a quality that has always characterized Puppy. Moreover, if the consumptions I mentioned in my question are correct, VoidPUP64 consumes more resources than the Void distro itself, with LXQT desktop!. .

[rockedge]

@yuki

KLV-Airedale is Void Linux based and at idle uses 270-362 M of RAM. KLV-Spectr at idle sits at 100 M RAM.

Screenshot(7).jpg (21.67 KiB) Viewed 324 times

DO anything with any GUI browser and over 600 M - 1.5 G right off the bat.

Any new Puppy Linux hovers at 600-900 M RAM at idle. No getting around it.

I have a KLV-Boxer is also Void Linux based and at idle uses 90 M of RAM

OF course KLV is not Puppy Linux so apples and oranges....but the days of Tahr-6.0.5 and idle at 70 M are bygone times.......

But I don't see your point. Unless your running a barely 64 bit machine with 2 G of total RAM so what your using 600+ M of RAM at idle.....it isn't a measure of anything useful.

Show me a useful OS running at what you think is "low RAM consumption". One that can do what a daily hard driven driver can do.

One can make a Void Linux with no X no wayland no audio that can be a server that idles at 40 M but a super inconvenient thing to actually use.

[yuki]

Indeed, I use a machine with only 2 GB of RAM, that's why: 1. the search for the greatest possible lightness and 2. the surprise to see that VoidPup uses more resources than the native distro on which it is based [VoidPup].

Now, the comment about EASY, does not lie in its comparison, I know well how different VoidPup and EASY are, it is based on the minimum RAM resources suggested in both forums: EASY, 3 GB; VoidPup, 1 GB; but EASY, is much lighter, that's why I thought I downloaded a wrong [VoidPup] version.

[geo_c]

Indeed, I use a machine with only 2 GB of RAM, that's why: 1. the search for the greatest possible lightness and 2. the surprise to see that VoidPup uses more resources than the native distro on which it is based [VoidPup].

Now, the comment about EASY, does not lie in its comparison, I know well how different VoidPup and EASY are, it is based on the minimum RAM resources suggested in both forums: EASY, 3 GB; VoidPup, 1 GB; but EASY, is much lighter, that's why I thought I downloaded a wrong [VoidPup] version.

I have a 2GB Ram machine and run KLV-spectr, which is Void with Spectrwm, and it's incredibly snappy. However, if I try and watch a youtube video, the video will freeze and run once the graphics processing catches up. It runs the best of all pups and other distros I've tried on that machine though, and although the video freezes, the audio will continue uninterrupted flawlessly, and the video will pick up where the audio is currently running and stay in sync. Certain hardware limitiations just can't be avoided when it comes to video streaming. But Spectr runs the best on it. It's a Toshiba Satellite netbook, 2GB Ram, and a single Celeron 1.6GHz processor.

If you don't like tiling window managers, KLV-Boxer uses JWM.

[Jasper]

I do not know why people are obsessed with 'idle' RAM usage.

I know I don't just turn the PC and just sit in front of it ......... I interact with it

Rockedge has provided information for users at the top of the forum to understand how to setup Puppy Linux eg

Choosing not to load the core SFS files into RAM during boot up:

puppylinux_ram_use-800px.jpg (97.6 KiB) Viewed 225 times

Also in the same section he states if you do have =<2 GB RAM, it is advisable to create a 'swap' file:

https://forum.puppylinux.com/viewtopic.php?t=5410

If you are adventurous you could try an alternative OS such as AntiX

@yuki Can you provide us with a screenshot of Void Linux using LXQT ie RAM use?

[Amol]

Hello puppy fans !
@yuki : you should try old 32bits puppy.For example there are tarhpup, xenialpup or bionicpup.That what i use on my old laptop.On my modern laptop i use recent pups, all are 64bits.For example, VoidPup64 uses about 300Mo of ram at start up.In comparison on my old laptop pups often uses less than 100Mo of ram at start up.
Amol

[wizard]

@yuki

Have several low power 64 bit computers with 2gb ram. My current choice for them is F96CE_4. They use pfix=nocopy,fsck in the grub kernel line and instead of a swap file they setup zram which has been more efficient.

At boot they use approx. 200mb of ram. Ram use with a browser running is going to be dependent on the browser and how it is configured.

wizard

[bigpup]

Indeed, I use a machine with only 2 GB of RAM, that's why: 1. the search for the greatest possible lightness and 2. the surprise to see that VoidPup uses more resources than the native distro on which it is based [VoidPup].

Now, the comment about EASY, does not lie in its comparison, I know well how different VoidPup and EASY are, it is based on the minimum RAM resources suggested in both forums: EASY, 3 GB; VoidPup, 1 GB; but EASY, is much lighter, that's why I thought I downloaded a wrong [VoidPup] version.

If you want it to run the way a normal Linux OS operates for using RAM.

Add to the boot menu entry Linux or kernel line pfix=nocopy

This will keep it from loading all of Voidpup64 into memory.
Should give you about 450MB Ram usage when booted to a working desktop.
This will make starting a program a little slower, because it has to load into RAM and then run.

Voidpup64 is using zram for swap, which is using a little RAM.
But the way zram sets up RAM.
It will make it operate as if it is about 2 times the actual physical size.
So, 2GB will function as if it is 4GB.

Not going to get into fully explaining zram.
Basically RAM is working with everything in it compressed, so uses less space in RAM.
On a very slow CPU you may notice a little longer time to access stuff in RAM, because stuff in RAM is being compressed and uncompressed to use it.
On a faster CPU, will not notice any difference.

However, swap will work very much faster.

Anyway, on my 2GB RAM computer zram is working very well. It has a CPU running around 1.3Ghz speed.

All the modern up to date web browsers now eat up RAM.
They all seem to want a minimum of 600 to 800 MB to just get running.

Trying to monitor RAM usage is a wast of time.
The RAM controller is constantly adjusting RAM usage for what is needed.
Any program giving info on RAM usage, is just showing what it was, at a specific point in time.