This applies when RAM is used as temporary cache or something that can be instantly freed the moment it is needed otherwise. This doesn’t really work for justifying higher RAM use by KDE, unless you would never need that RAM for anything else anyway.
I use KDE because it is good, though. Also I don’t think KDE even uses more RAM than other DEs that are designed to be lightweight. Last time I compared, it used the same or less memory as LXDE.
Also I don’t think KDE even uses more RAM than other DEs that are designed to be lightweight. Last time I compared, it used the same or less memory as LXDE.
Yep. KDE is feature-rich, but it’s also highly optimized these days, and the RAM usage is actually competitive with the best of them.
You can get RAM usage lower on a very stripped down, barebones system, but if you want a full ‘normal computer’ desktop experience that has all the things you’d expect a computer to have, you’d be hard-pressed to find one that uses significantly less RAM than KDE. (Yes, there are some that get lower … but not a lot lower. And unless you’re running on some extremely limited hardware, are those extra 20MB of RAM really going to make a difference in your everyday life?)
Also I don’t think KDE even uses more RAM than other DEs that are designed to be lightweight. Last time I compared, it used the same or less memory as LXDE.
Firefox without any website loaded uses more RAM than a full Plasma session.
Also, higher ram usage by programs makes it less likely that their actively used RAM (ie what it is actually currently using) fits in your CPUs caches, making them run slower.
It’s just really oversimplifying memory usage. OS designers had that same thought decades ago already, so they introduced disk caching. If data gets loaded from disk, then it won’t be erased from memory as soon as it isn’t needed anymore. It’s only erased, if something else requests memory and this happens to be the piece of “free” memory that the kernel thinks is the most expendable.
For example, this is what the situation on my system looks like:
free-h
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 25Gi 9,8Gi 6,0Gi 586Mi 9,3Gi 15Gi
Out of my 32 GiB physical RAM, 25 GiB happens to be usable by my applications, of which:
9.8 GiB is actually reserved (used),
9.2 GiB is currently in use for disk caching and buffers (buff/cache), and
only 6.1 GiB is actually unused (free).
If you run cat /proc/meminfo, you can get an even more fine-grained listing.
I’m sure, I could get the number for actually unused memory even lower, if I had started more applications since booting my laptop. Or as the Wikipedia article I linked above puts it:
Usually, all physical memory not directly allocated to applications is used by the operating system for the page[/disk] cache.
So, if you launch a memory-heavy application, it will generally cause memory used for disk caching to be cleared, which will slow the rest of your system down somewhat.
Having said all that, I am on KDE myself. I do not believe, it’s worth optimizing for the speed of the system, if you’re sacrificing features that would speed up your usage of it. Hell, it ultimately comes down to how happy you are with your computer, so if it makes you happy, then even gaudy eye-candy can be the right investment.
I just do not like these “unused RAM is wasted RAM” calls, because it is absolutely possible to implement few features while using lots of memory, and that does slow your system down unnecessarily.
I read this same principle in an arch or gentoo forum/manual. I can’t even think of an argument against it tho? Unused anything is wasted by definition isn’t it? I know I’m missing something obvious somehow
The problem with the simplified phrase is that your computer is expected to run more than one program at a time.
If you are only running one program, it should certainly use all the RAM of your system.
However, your desktop, laptop, phone, tablet, game console, etc. all run hundreds or thousands of programs at the same time. Each individual application should optimize RAM usage so the whole system can work together.
Another commenter in the chain talks about disk caching, which is what the phrase “unused ram is wasted ram” came from
It’s been coopted by application programmers who don’t want to optimize their software
Can we try a different example or a declarative statement that negates my implied claim that in any case where a thing is unused, it must be categorized as waste by definition? The previous questions seem obviously clarifying of nothing. I know they’re probably clarifying once your point is known, but because the point remains unknown to me, I can only perceive them as empty Socratic dialogue? I know it’s not, I’m just trying to express more definitively how confused I’m getting lol
Unused ram is wasted ram. Change my mind
This applies when RAM is used as temporary cache or something that can be instantly freed the moment it is needed otherwise. This doesn’t really work for justifying higher RAM use by KDE, unless you would never need that RAM for anything else anyway.
I use KDE because it is good, though. Also I don’t think KDE even uses more RAM than other DEs that are designed to be lightweight. Last time I compared, it used the same or less memory as LXDE.
Yep. KDE is feature-rich, but it’s also highly optimized these days, and the RAM usage is actually competitive with the best of them.
You can get RAM usage lower on a very stripped down, barebones system, but if you want a full ‘normal computer’ desktop experience that has all the things you’d expect a computer to have, you’d be hard-pressed to find one that uses significantly less RAM than KDE. (Yes, there are some that get lower … but not a lot lower. And unless you’re running on some extremely limited hardware, are those extra 20MB of RAM really going to make a difference in your everyday life?)
Firefox without any website loaded uses more RAM than a full Plasma session.
And KDE can be even more efficient if you go into the settings and tweak things a bit, turning off some unnecessary features that are on by default.
The difference being that in the one of those cases you still need to open a browser instance before you are able to browse the web.
Also, higher ram usage by programs makes it less likely that their actively used RAM (ie what it is actually currently using) fits in your CPUs caches, making them run slower.
It’s just really oversimplifying memory usage. OS designers had that same thought decades ago already, so they introduced disk caching. If data gets loaded from disk, then it won’t be erased from memory as soon as it isn’t needed anymore. It’s only erased, if something else requests memory and this happens to be the piece of “free” memory that the kernel thinks is the most expendable.
For example, this is what the situation on my system looks like:
free -h total used free shared buff/cache available Mem: 25Gi 9,8Gi 6,0Gi 586Mi 9,3Gi 15GiOut of my 32 GiB physical RAM, 25 GiB happens to be usable by my applications, of which:
used),buff/cache), andfree).If you run
cat /proc/meminfo, you can get an even more fine-grained listing.I’m sure, I could get the number for actually unused memory even lower, if I had started more applications since booting my laptop. Or as the Wikipedia article I linked above puts it:
So, if you launch a memory-heavy application, it will generally cause memory used for disk caching to be cleared, which will slow the rest of your system down somewhat.
Having said all that, I am on KDE myself. I do not believe, it’s worth optimizing for the speed of the system, if you’re sacrificing features that would speed up your usage of it. Hell, it ultimately comes down to how happy you are with your computer, so if it makes you happy, then even gaudy eye-candy can be the right investment.
I just do not like these “unused RAM is wasted RAM” calls, because it is absolutely possible to implement few features while using lots of memory, and that does slow your system down unnecessarily.
I got plenty of ram. We’re using it.
I read this same principle in an arch or gentoo forum/manual. I can’t even think of an argument against it tho? Unused anything is wasted by definition isn’t it? I know I’m missing something obvious somehow
The problem with the simplified phrase is that your computer is expected to run more than one program at a time.
If you are only running one program, it should certainly use all the RAM of your system.
However, your desktop, laptop, phone, tablet, game console, etc. all run hundreds or thousands of programs at the same time. Each individual application should optimize RAM usage so the whole system can work together.
Another commenter in the chain talks about disk caching, which is what the phrase “unused ram is wasted ram” came from
It’s been coopted by application programmers who don’t want to optimize their software
Well, e. g. unused weapon is not really waste, is it?
what? yes, an unused weapon is still a wasted weapon. I know I’m missing something tho
Maybe it is a wasted weapon, but is it really a waste? Can weapon be considered wasted?
Can we try a different example or a declarative statement that negates my implied claim that in any case where a thing is unused, it must be categorized as waste by definition? The previous questions seem obviously clarifying of nothing. I know they’re probably clarifying once your point is known, but because the point remains unknown to me, I can only perceive them as empty Socratic dialogue? I know it’s not, I’m just trying to express more definitively how confused I’m getting lol