Any one ever try/use IFreeMem?
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: Wes Groleau on 16 Feb 2007 23:18 Dave Balderstone wrote: > Please explain how memory gets "cluttered" over time so that it's more > noticeable when a Mac is older, and less so when a Mac is new. He may have been blowing smoke, but what he said was clear to me: When an application no longer needs RAM--even if the app is closed-- the RAM pages can remain allocated, not swapped out until needed. IF this happens, then you have a slowdown because swapping is occurring at the very moment when you need more "power." If you can free this memory at a time when it's NOT needed, then when it's needed, the Mac only needs to load the memory rather than write it to disk, coalesce free blocks and then load RAM. I remain dubious, but (1) his explanation IS reasonable, and (2) the OP certainly thinks he is seeing a speed-up. -- Wes Groleau Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise according to his own conceit. -- Solomon Are you saying there's no good way to answer a fool? -- Groleau
From: Wes Groleau on 16 Feb 2007 23:25 Tom Harrington wrote: > It sounds like this might be what iFreeMem is doing. Even allowing > this, I stand by the idea that doing so is a crock. The reason is-- you > may force the OS to write data from inactive memory to disk, and memory > allocations may be a little faster afterward. But sooner or later the > OS is going to want to read that data back from disk into RAM. In other Not if the page was malloc'd by an app that failed to free it but is not using it. > In other parts of the web page there's talk of making your Mac run like > it was new as a result of using the application. This, and I cannot > emphasize this enough, is complete and utter bullshit. Every time your > Mac reboots, all memory of all kinds is completely cleared out, and you > start with a blank page. Memory performance and availability does not > decline as your Mac gets older, so the idea that iFreeMem is somehow > reversing some kind of gradual decline is nonsense. Ah, but how many times in this newsgroup has someone been mildly flamed for rebooting his Mac ? "Macs don't need rebooting because they don't run Windows!" -- Wes Groleau Even if you do learn to speak correct English, whom are you going to speak it to? -- Clarence Darrow
From: Dave Balderstone on 16 Feb 2007 23:26 In article <kmvBh.59$4J4.3(a)trnddc01>, Wes Groleau <groleau+news(a)freeshell.org> wrote: > Dave Balderstone wrote: > > Please explain how memory gets "cluttered" over time so that it's more > > noticeable when a Mac is older, and less so when a Mac is new. > > He may have been blowing smoke, but what he said was clear to me: > When an application no longer needs RAM--even if the app is closed-- > the RAM pages can remain allocated, not swapped out until needed. > IF this happens, then you have a slowdown because swapping is occurring > at the very moment when you need more "power." If you can free this > memory at a time when it's NOT needed, then when it's needed, the Mac > only needs to load the memory rather than write it to disk, coalesce > free blocks and then load RAM. > > I remain dubious, but (1) his explanation IS reasonable, and (2) the > OP certainly thinks he is seeing a speed-up. But that doesn't explain the age component. Why does "old" RAM acquire cruft? -- You can't PLAN sincerity. You have to make it up on the spot! -- Denny Crane
From: Wes Groleau on 17 Feb 2007 11:54 Tim Lance wrote: > On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:26:52 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote >> But that doesn't explain the age component. Why does "old" RAM acquire >> cruft? > > No joke. That's nuts and I thought so at the very first. Well, IF the developer is correct, AND you never reboot your machine (as some people here will advise you not to do) then small "memory leaks" will add up over time. And if they really are small leaks, then you get what is called heap fragmentation, which makes the slowdowns worse. -- Wes Groleau Can we afford to be relevant? http://www.cetesol.org/stevick.html
From: Dave Balderstone on 17 Feb 2007 13:05
In article <xrGBh.1026$EU.1001(a)trnddc07>, Wes Groleau <groleau+news(a)freeshell.org> wrote: > Tim Lance wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:26:52 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote > > >> But that doesn't explain the age component. Why does "old" RAM acquire > >> cruft? > > > > No joke. That's nuts and I thought so at the very first. > > Well, IF the developer is correct, AND you never reboot your machine > (as some people here will advise you not to do) then small "memory > leaks" will add up over time. And if they really are small leaks, > then you get what is called heap fragmentation, which makes the > slowdowns worse. Never rebooting would assume you never upgrade your OS, apply security patches, suffer a kernel panic, experience a power outage... Nope. I don't buy it. -- You can't PLAN sincerity. You have to make it up on the spot! -- Denny Crane |