XYMer's Home away from Home

When http://bbs.xlr8yourmac.com is down (i.e. always)
Privacy Policy
It is currently Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:50 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:19 am 
Offline
Team Towel Guy

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1247
Folks:

Looking at the OWC site for memory upgrades for the better half's new/used (late 2012) MacMini6,1 . . . it arrived with 4 GB and has (geep) 10.14 installed, and other than the intermittent non-sleeping issues that I have experienced as well, she is saying that in basic usage, she uses Safari, Mail, and Pages . . . says she is getting the dreaded spinning beachball more than she wants . . . .

So, looks like everymac and owc and crucial say "16 GB" is max, I'm thinking that 8 GB would prolly be "just fine" . . . but it looks like OWC offers an option for "12 GB" by mixing an 8 + a 4 . . . as a "pair"??? Traditionally it seems like Mac's are pretty "sensitive" to RAM, like all sticks have to be same manufacturer, possible same location of build . . . so will the Mini boot and run too different sticks, or if it would, is that "kosher"???

I think 16 would prolly be a "waste" of $$$ for her and that machine, but kicking it up over 8 might be "OK," ??? but doesn't seem like they offer 6 + 6, or 5 +5??? Crucial seems to be a little higher in price by a few bucks, and they only have 4's or 8's as singles . . . but, again, don't know whether it is considered "OK" to mix and match RAM sticks in the Mini???

Thoughts on the state of Mini RAM upgrades??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:25 am 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 17708
Don't bother with another 4 GB, 8 is not enough, add an 8GB at the very least, I have 24GB & Basically just Browsing & Mail, mixing sizes is fine. :)


Attachments:
AM2416gb.gif
AM2416gb.gif [ 35.43 KiB | Viewed 315 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:07 pm
Posts: 2842
Location: Inside Flatus Maximus
Mixing sizes won't hurt, but it will diminish performance most likely. How much depends on what you do with the machine, really. Most modern memory architectures support at least dual channel configurations, in which case you want identically sized DIMMs. Ideally you want a matched set of DIMMs, as getting them separately means the timings might be different between them and cause stability issues. In this case, I'd just get an 8 GB DIMM to be safe. It should be stable enough, since this is a Mac and you obviously can't OC a Mac. However, Mojave eats a ton of RAM, so you may wish to go with the matched pair of 8 GB DIMMs. Remember, you are running 64-bit everything for the most part, so apps will eat more than 32-bit apps of yesteryear will.

_________________
Official Mac Tech Support Forum Cookie™ (Mint Chocolate Chip)
Guaranteed tasty; Potentially volatile when dipped in WWIII Forum Syrup®
Caution: This cookie bites back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:51 am 
Offline
Team Towel Guy

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1247
@BD && ST:

Thanks for the replies . . . well, another option is to roll her back to 10.12 or 10.13 . . . which right now she is "resisting" because it's a psychological "downgrade" . . .aka "less value" . . . . This Mini maxes out at 16 GB, which is OK, I'm trying to balance a tight budget with keeping power use more economical . . . for the endless hours of scrolling through web pages . . . or looking at online news . . . nothing like video editing or crunching of dnetc packets, etc.

I'm booted in my 10.13 clone on my cMP and yesterday I checked the Activity Monitor and it showed it was using "6 GB" out of the 16 I have . . . . I'm running the max of 8 GB on my '09 MBPro with 10.11??? and haven't found it wanting or giving me the BB.

I have yet to get the permission to check her Activity Monitor in her 10.14 to see what kind of load it's putting on her 4 GB . . . and I also didn't bounce over to my patcher 10.15 drive to see what it's pulling over there . . . .

Just wanted to see what the opinion would be here, and sure, I get it, never enough money and never enough RAM, but then if we are trying to keep the watts down then trying to find the optimum RAM to run the optimum distro . . . like if it were "mine" I'd be running linux on it, and the 4 GB RAM would prolly be "OK" for the "daily driving" around the web . . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:51 pm 
Offline
Team Towel Guy

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1247
Squishy Tia wrote:
In this case, I'd just get an 8 GB DIMM to be safe. It should be stable enough, since this is a Mac and you obviously can't OC a Mac. However, Mojave eats a ton of RAM, so you may wish to go with the matched pair of 8 GB DIMMs. Remember, you are running 64-bit everything for the most part, so apps will eat more than 32-bit apps of yesteryear will.


@ST, et al:

Following up . . . so we checked the AM "memory" data on the Mini, and that showed "3 GB" RAM being used out of the 4 that it has now, but there was a significant amount of swap being used as well, which I haven't seen heavy swap use since a long ways back in perhaps PPC linux where something had gone wrong . . . . So, it's pretty clear, and pre-known that 4 GB wouldn't be enough to run 10.14, could even go so far as to say that prolly Mac O Trades should not have installed 10.14 on this machine at all . . . but they did . . . . So, we'll have to make a few decisions.

But, question to Squishy T . . . it seems like you are suggesting that if we were to do it "on the cheap" and try for the low ball "8 GB," that going with one 8 GB stick would be "better" or "more efficient" than going with two 4 GB sticks???

Seemed like the olden Mac gurus would suggest that going two sticks of whatever would kick in some kind of "synergistic harmonics" that would give enhanced RAM power . . . that "two together is better than one alone"??? Like OSX had some "RAM turbo boost" that would only work with two, or pairs of twos?????

From my experience I couldn't depend upon, let's say OWC, having the same manufacturer or you mentioned "timing" of RAM such that if we went with 1 stick of 8, that later on "we could always just add another 8" . . . we would have to start fresh at that time for two 8's to get to 16 . . . .

But, if we want to go with "just 8" for now, seems like you think the single stick of 8 is "mo betteh"????


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:32 pm 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 17708
I think a 4 & an 8 will make up for any speedup from matched 4GB Pairs.

Also check the RAM/VM usage after a few days of browsing if never shut down.. or are you planning on shutting it down & restarting every day?

I can run about a week of browsing with 24 GB of RAM before it's down to 2GB of FREE RAM & really bogs down with VM.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:24 pm 
Offline
Team Towel Guy

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1247
BDAqua wrote:
I think a 4 & an 8 will make up for any speedup from matched 4GB Pairs.

Also check the RAM/VM usage after a few days of browsing if never shut down.. or are you planning on shutting it down & restarting every day?

I can run about a week of browsing with 24 GB of RAM before it's down to 2GB of FREE RAM & really bogs down with VM.


@BD:

So it sounds like you aren't "opposed" to the 8 + 4 option . . . might be the "happy medium" on boost/price/watts . . . to go 12 GB?

In the interim I booted my cMP in 10.13, patcher 10.15 and 10.12 partitions . . . running a whole lot of tabs in FF, Mail, and AM . . . High Sierra actually seemed to be the "heavy user" at 6.77 GB RAM . . . . Patcher 10.15 showed base system with no apps at 3 GB and then with the test apps open it was using 5.37 GB . . . . 10.12 was the easiest on the RAM gas . . . roughly 4 GB being used . . . and that included opening a Nikon Photo manager app window with some photos showing. I no longer have a 10.14 option installed to test out, but I don't see much difference between 10.14/15 . . . or any of the last four upgrades for that matter.

Then for humor I booted up my MBPro '09 with 8 GB RAM running 10.11 . . . booted FF, opened Mail, opened Utilities, Opened AM . . . that showed "2 GB" being used.

And then, the final-final test . . . back in the cMP . . . booted OpenSUSE Tumbleweed . . . base system "998 MB" RAM being used . . . opened the usual bunch o tabs in FF, opened T-bird Mail . . . and System Monitor and we're cooking with "1.8 GB" of memory . . . . :coffee:

She tends to just put the unit to sleep at night rather than shut down . . . so that might be another criterion to check on the RAM/VM use; these days I shut down every evening and boot into a fresh distro the next day . . . she just runs the single distro, but might leave it up and running . . . . Not sure whether she has made her mind to go for 16 or if she is trying to keep it cheap with 8; seems like 8 might be enough to run less than Mojave, or might be enough if she shuts down each night to re-freshen the, what . . . the VM??? But the 8 + 4 might be the "just right" option??? . . . the 8 would go on the bottom and be the #1 used stick and the 4 would be on top as #2 and that would be "over-watch"???? :classic-eek: :badteeth:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:00 pm 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 17708
Yes, nice testing, now boot up OS7.5.5 & tell me how many KB it uses to do the same tasks! :P

Any way I once did some extensive EAM test comparing 10% faster Ram t RAM, Benchmarks yes, it was 10% faster in pure RAM tests, but in overall System Benchmarks it was less than 1% faster.

See if the Ram usage creeps up overnite or two without adding anything.

I highly recommend at least one 8 GB chip.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:24 pm 
Offline
Team Towel Guy

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1247
BDAqua wrote:
Yes, nice testing, now boot up OS7.5.5 & tell me how many KB it uses to do the same tasks! :P

Any way I once did some extensive EAM test comparing 10% faster Ram t RAM, Benchmarks yes, it was 10% faster in pure RAM tests, but in overall System Benchmarks it was less than 1% faster.

See if the Ram usage creeps up overnite or two without adding anything.

I highly recommend at least one 8 GB chip.


@BD:

LOL . . . OK Pops, I know I can never catch up on the "have you really, really tested this like I have?" . . . question . . . . :fishsmack: I don't have OS 7 installed anywhere, but I think I might be able to get to the OS9 side of the '00 iMac that is "dual-boot" or now "triple-boot". . . if it didn't have a kernel panic while booting up; or I think I cloned that system over to my Sawtoothe so I might be able to get there to OS9, I have that one maxed out for the full 2 GB RAM that it can run, but seems like it can only run for 17 minutes before the display turns black, but I might be able to get to AM and check RAM activity before it died?????? For the most part I have no practical use for the OS series anymore . . . .

I could easily check OSX 10.6 in my MBP . . . that was a good system all-around, prolly pretty easy on the RAM ... .

So, asking again for total, completely thorough clarification, the idea of a single 8 GB stick is perhaps "better" than going two 4's? to get to a minimum requirement of 8 GB??

And then after that it could be that an 8 + 4 would "out gun" the two 4's . . . and obviously the "best" would be 8 + 8 . . . but there would be increased wattage going with that maximum capacity spec for the machine . . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:56 pm 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 17708
Completely thorough clarification... no need to toss the 4 you have, just add an 8, for 12GB.

I'm not sure on the energy saving idea, rain killed my kill-a-watt & cMP that I was starting to test such things as less RAM & having VM have to kick the drive into high gear vs. more RAM & drive idling all the time.

Currently, the most common type of computer memory is DDR3, which uses 1.5 volts and about 2 - 3.3 amps for a typical power consumption of about 3 - 5 watts. RAM which operates at 1.5 volts will always need 1.5 volts, however the amps required to simply refresh the current memory state is only about 300ma (about 3/10 of an amp), so during sleep mode, RAM would only be consuming about 1/2 of a watt.
https://www.quora.com/How-much-power-do ... sleep-mode

Amperage is a max draw number so if the hard drive only needs 1.5A, it will only pull 1.5A whether the adapter is 1.5A or 3A.
https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads ... s.2144144/

OSX 10.1.5 could boot with 96MB of RAM, could do much after that though. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:13 pm 
Offline
Team Towel Guy

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1247
BDAqua wrote:
Completely thorough clarification... no need to toss the 4 you have, just add an 8, for 12GB.

I'm not sure on the energy saving idea, rain killed my kill-a-watt & cMP that I was starting to test such things as less RAM & having VM have to kick the drive into high gear vs. more RAM & drive idling all the time.

:)


Thanks for the reply . . . well, this Mini has two slots with 2 GB RAM in each slot to get the "4GB," so that's not going to work, unless trying to add an 8 GB would bring it to a Ten GBer, which might be most excellent enough??? . . . and then there is the "Oh, you are using foreign, unmatched RAMs in our precision machine" problem that Mac's or my cMP seemed to have when I tried to "add a stick to what I had" . . . machine wouldn't boot. (Can't remember if it showed me a letter of explanation, or just wouldn't boot and I had to trace it to my attempts to upgrade RAM as the culprit for the non-boot.)

So, anyway, I do get what you are saying, it's sort of the old Motor City argument for how "economical the V-8 engine can be because it's under-stressed" . . . back in the 70's gas crunch days . . . . So, using that argument it wouldn't be a huge cost differential to run the computer with 8 GB or 16 GB for "normal daily driving" . . . and might be "cheaper" to run the machine with 16 GB than maybe bouncing it into the swap trying to run it on only 8 GB???

It's going to be her call, but, from looking at the systems other than 10.14 . . . it seems like 8 might be "OK" . . . 12 could be "fine" and 16 would be "great" . . . if she wants to pay the buy-in on it. Or maybe we could "try an 8 and replace one of the 2s"???? (personally don't think trying any of the unmatched items will work).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:37 pm 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 17708
Yes good analogy! :)

Like why have a Greyhound fetch a beer from the fridge & then have Beagle replace that one beer in the fridge by having to go down in the root cellar... then your buddies show up for a party... why not have a team of Huskies hauling the beer up?

10 GB will be better than 8 GB. :)

Full disclosure: I've never been quite right!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:58 pm 
Offline
Team Towel Guy

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1247
More, very graphic analogies . . . trying to figure out whether, 1 greyhound, or 1 Beagle, or Team of Huskies is the best choice . . . to accomplish the daily mundane cyber tasks . . . .

So, seems like the "consensus" is . . . "at least 8 GB RAM," either in one 8 stick or 4's . . . and anything more than that wouldn't be over-kill, and the difference in power use between 8 GB and 12 GB and/or even 16 GB wouldn't be enough to be "an argument winner" in the decision between said "greyhound," "Beagle" or raging 16 GB aka "Team of Huskies"????

I'm assuming that the maxed out 16 GB is represented by the "Team of Huskies" analogy??? Or was that the "Greyhound"??? :shock: :shock: :shock: :?:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:04 pm 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 17708
The greyhound/one beer was a tiny 64GB SSD attached to whatchamacallit drive, the Beagle was the 5400rpm drive, the team of Huskies was a team of 8, 10, 12, or 16 Dogs, you choose, but a team of 4 dogs is going to tire easily with even very little to pack. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:51 pm
Posts: 718
Location: Minnesota, USA
Beachballing? Maybe I missed it in all the posts but this Mini does have a SSD doesn't it? I'd imagine that's pretty much essential with Mojave.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:36 pm 
Offline
Team Towel Guy

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1247
Limnos wrote:
Beachballing? Maybe I missed it in all the posts but this Mini does have a SSD doesn't it? I'd imagine that's pretty much essential with Mojave.


@Limnos:

Yes, it does have an SSD . . . but the 4 Dog night RAM seems to bring the BB, and I saw the AM showing that 10.14 is using Swap to get the beers up the stairs and into the kitchen . . . .

Seems pretty clear that 10.14 needs more than 4 GB . . . but, is there a cost/benefit "optimal" for the machine . . . ??? My decision would be to wipe the Mojave right out of that drive . . . and roll it back to something more "efficient" vis the number of dogs it needs to schlep the brewskies around in an "understressed" manner . . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:38 pm
Posts: 673
I would go with 16GB.

On my cMP I have 3 browsers open and that's all except for my
programs that load at boot. You tube playing one (1440p) video

It's using 14.24 GB memory used - cached files of 11.48 GB -
App memory 11.03 GB - Wired memory 3.19 GB - Swap used: 0
I have 64GB installed. I've seen it use more than 32 GB of that.

My 2011 Mac Book Pro has 16 GB. I've seen it use most of that
installed memory before.

Point is: If you install it, your Mac will probably use it.

I'm not even using Mojave, I'm on energy efficient 10.12.6 Sierra. :)

_________________
Mac pro 1,1 - Mac pro 5,1 w/Areca Raid - Macbook pro 8,3 - Snow Leopard, Mountain lion and Sierra.
"We are the Messengers between Time and its Keeper."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:10 am 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 17708
Good point Limnos, you'd think an SSD would alleviate the lack of Ram better, but maybe with only 4GB it's continually swapping little bits & pieces of the OS in & out, back & forth, hundreds of times, even swapping the swap in & out??

Say you've got 1GB free RAM to use & Apps & OS requires 4GB of VM... how many times must it page in/out & rearrange stuff to get the relevant parts in the active 1GB? And if the relevant parts for some operation do not fit in 1GB we start approaching infinite swaps?

eep/TTG, in Activity Monitor>Disk tab, how active is that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:31 am 
Offline
Team Towel Guy

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1247
Attachment:
File comment: Activity Monitor MacMini 4GB RAM
Screen Shot 2020-06-16 at 9.12.52 AM.png [318.39 KiB]
Not downloaded yet


@kjk555:

Thanks for the comments, going with 16 would take care of the questions as to whether we should have just maxed the RAM out, it would be . . . running at capacity.

But, I guess there are different cMPs . . . because I wasn't seeing major spikes in my 16 GBs useage . . . never got over 6GB, but then I wasn't doing anything other than holding 40 browser tabs open, more or less . . . in one browser. Checking the two SSDs and one of the HDDs . . . but, my machine is running Quad-core cpu??? I didn't look at anything when I try to crunch some dnetc packets . . . .

@BD:

Alrighty, I'll check that when she gets to the machine and I can squeeze in between the Yahoo News items . . . .
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:32 pm 
Offline
Team Towel Guy

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1247
@BD:

Did an edit on the previous post to upload the screenshot . . . didn't exactly drop in where I wanted it . . . . But, anything of interest show up in that screenshot from this morning????


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:38 pm 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 17708
You can sort it by different actions, click on the Bytes Witten or Bytes Read header.

Is that where you wanted it? :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:36 pm 
Offline
Team Towel Guy

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1247
BDAqua wrote:
You can sort it by different actions, click on the Bytes Witten or Bytes Read header.

Is that where you wanted it? :D


@BD:

I don't have too much experience with that part of the app, reads in/writes out . . . I was just going for the graph at the bottom . . . . Is there something more specific that you would be looking for?

We could assume that the 4 GB of RAM is "not enough" to run Mojave . . . so the system is struggling . . . maybe?? Question would be where to punt it next, she seems to be thinking the 8 + 4 route . . . I'm saying either go 8 . . . or go for the 16 . . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:40 pm 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 17708
Ah, the graph at the bottom... looks good... maybe 4GB+SSD is good enough for the wife's use!?

But i'D get an 8, maybe just one for now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:03 pm 
Offline
Team Towel Guy

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1247
BDAqua wrote:
Ah, the graph at the bottom... looks good... maybe 4GB+SSD is good enough for the wife's use!?

But i'D get an 8, maybe just one for now.


@BDAq:

Ah, OK, great . . . yep, I tend to think for daily driving that 8 GB might be plenty of oomph . . . she mostly just putting around on the web checking up on social media, etc.

I guess you are saying to get one 8, and then maybe later, ***possibly**** that just getting another 8 or another 4 might work to get to 16 GB, rather than getting two "matched 8's" or a "matched 8 + 4" ?????


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:59 pm 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 17708
It looks like one 8 GB for now with one 2GB left in will be good,cabn always add another 8 GB later if needed... replacing a 2 GB with a 4GB doesn't sound worthwhile really


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group