How much RAM is your client using?

Hi, as I love polls just another one. I would like to see how much RAM your cluient is using. I would suggest giving numbers in quite areas as we need to have the ability to compare.

You might give more data (CPU usage, how much RAM you have, graphics card, how much GHz, what Linux distribution ...) And if yiou think you have problems or are satisfied with the performance.

I could not make any sense out of the facts I have collected so far. It seems that performance of computer and the performance of SL often are not very related.

it is a know fact that newer graphic cards do a lot more work and so have much more todo with SL than older card that do not show many things in SL.

Maybe we can get some sense out of this data?

As an example here is my system:

* CPU: 1,2 GhZ
* RAM: 512 MB
* SL RAM usage: about 215 MB
* SL CPU usage: 50-80%
* Linux distribution: Fedora Core 5
* Desktop: GNOME 2.14
* Graphics card: NVIDIA 5200FX

Tis works generally good for me. I am also running Windows XP sometimes in another partition. I have a lot more crashes on Windows ans MUCH more problems with RAM. I am generall very satisfied with the performance. I don't like that rezzing takes time, but that does not take much CPU/RAM. So maybe of you optimise the time it takes to rezz this is eating CPU and RAM?

Don't know - not an expert...

Good poll! And probably my fault

I am not going to vote yet, cos my SL Linux Alpha Client is crazy right now

Top gives the ability to see Virtual and Resident Memory, as well as share. I guess you mean resident?

When I get my client fixed (so its at least SIMILAR to the windows/wine client in memory usage), I will vote on the poll

the real question is, does SL use all your swap, but not 100% of the ram it needs ?

276 MB RAM usage in a quiet area, 99% CPU all the time. My machine stats are in my signature. All in all I'm quite satisfied with the performance.

Same two locations: DarkWood(107,3 and Simcoe(222,21

In windows SL uses 675 MBytes, which is the same after going to both places, and letting the textures load.



That is a LOT Higher than I am used to. And SL is so slow then, 1.2 FPS (slow even for me, I normally get around 5 fps).

I hope I haven't damaged any hardware, when I tried overclocking for a few minutes. Though I can't see that this would really be hardware.

--- EDIT ---

Same two loactions, one after the other, on a different computer. This time, just the same result.

Is this intended behaviour?

If you can, please test this, windows wine and linux, with the two places I mentioned.

This is very worrying.

CTRL SHIFT 3, the texture console, shows GLTOT 68/232, and MB Bound 23/116. That is NOT much texture memory being used (Windows).

--- END EDIT ---

Ok, I have done with my tests

Aside from the problem with those two locations in SL (which I think is a bug - people with less memory will simply hang up and crash; I just hang up ), I use 260 MB in Windows. I will add my Linux value in a minute.

I did take virtual RAM. Resident RAM is at 150-160 MB at Darkwood 107,38.

MEM% = 33
CPU% = 80-99