Could one make Everything use less RAM?

[Biff]

Could one make Everything use less RAM(?):

[vsub]

That's probably depends on how many files you have and what info you have indexed
Mine is at 130mb right now with 1 million files
If you are viewing a lot of images\videos in thumbnails mode,the usage will skyrocket but that's the same behavior as viewing them in explorer

[Biff]

Everything shows 9.5 million files and folders here.

When I search for "Picture" Everything shows 3.2 million files. Sorry, I do not understand, why does the usage skyrocket? The usage is the RAM?

[vsub]

Because everything is creates a preview of the image file or read the already created thumbnail and store in in ram
Also the database is loaded into ram when you start the program and kept there until to close Everything(then it is written to the hdd)

Explorer also act the same way
Open some huge folder with picture,set the view mode to thumbnails and start scrolling down while looking at the ram usage

Windows is set like this...if you have ram,it will use as much as possible and keep things in ram and only remove old things from ram when you don't have enough

[Biff]

How could I make Everything avoid create / read previews of thumbs?

It seems there are not shown any previews here, only the ones on the drives accessible at the moment. So Everything might not store / read such?

[vsub]

If you are not viewing images in thumbnails mode in Everything then the problem is either corrupted database(try rebuilding it but it will probably take a while since you have a lot of files)or simply because you have way too many files and in the Indexes option if you select anything other that the default,that will increase the database size even more

[froggie]

The x86 version of Everything will use half the memory of the 64 bit version.Which are you using?

For the number of files you have the memory usage seems consistent with what I have observed.

Are you having a problem or are you alarmed by the red flag in the process viewer?

This is virtual memory of course - how much real memory do you have, what Windows version and it is 64 or 32 bit?

[Biff]

The x86 version of Everything will use half the memory of the 64 bit version.Which are you using?

That is pretty much, I use this one:


Is there a drawback using the x86 version instead of of the 64 bit one?

Are you having a problem or are you alarmed by the red flag in the process viewer?

Not really a problem. I guess, too less RAM, 8 GB. I just want to save some RAM.

This is virtual memory of course - how much real memory do you have, what Windows version and it is 64 or 32 bit?

This I have:

[void]

Please try reducing the number of files Everything indexes.

Please have a look at Optimal settings for Everything 1.4.

[Biff]

Many thanks for the links.

Actually I would like to index all of the files always.

Please have a look at Optimal settings for Everything 1.4.

It looks like as if the measures there would not effect that much the use of RAM. And I would not know of any setting I use I would that I wanted to do without (although there might be one).

Many thanks!

[NotNull]

Could one make Everything use less RAM(?):

With 9.5 million files and folders the answer to that is: No.
Everything needs about 100 bytes per file/folder to save all data. And that is pretty impressive, given your average filename, including path, is already quite long. [1]

Using a lot of RAM is not an issue most of the time. A lot of applications "steal" some extra RAM for just-in-case caching.
When free RAM turns low, they will return taht to the system (for example Google Chrome works that way)
As long as it's not 98% used, you're good. Besides: you paid for it, so let's use it

(But maybe you should't listen to me ... I always try to run with as little RAM as possible)


[1] 140 on my system. path:len:>140 and path:len:<140 return approximately the same number of objects (see statusbar).
And I think Everything uses 2 bytes for each character (because of Unicode).

[Biff]

With 9.5 million files and folders the answer to that is: No.

Yes, actually I had already thought like that.

Using a lot of RAM is not an issue most of the time. A lot of applications "steal" some extra RAM for just-in-case caching.
When free RAM turns low, they will return taht to the system (for example Google Chrome works that way)
As long as it's not 98% used, you're good. Besides: you paid for it, so let's use it

Oops, yes, never considered that, paid RAM without using it...No, it's 80, 90 % use very often, more than 95 I have rarely, I guess.

(But maybe you should't listen to me ... I always try to run with as little RAM as possible)

No, no, of course I should listen to you...much better than listen to me...

[1] 140 on my system. path:len:>140 and path:len:<140 return approximately the same number of objects (see statusbar).
And I think Everything uses 2 bytes for each character (because of Unicode).

So Everything here runs as good as possible (with (almost) as less RAM use as possbile).

Many thanks!

[froggie]

You have 8GB of REAL storage (RAM in the display). Your are using about 1GB of VIRTUAL storage (a tiny fraction of the available VIRTUAL storage with 64 bit Everything). Pieces of VIRTUAL storage are loaded into REAL storage as needed.

You do not have a storage problem from Everything - in fact if you turned on index settings (detailed above in Void's post) you will use a bit more VIRTUAL storage but you will find Everything even faster.

[NotNull]

If you use FireFox, you can often reclaim a lot of memory:
- URL:

about:memory

- Press the Minimize memory usage button
- Wait a second for feedback
- Done

2020-05-12 00_05_48-Mozilla Firefox.png (26.02 KiB) Viewed 16844 times

Especially Google Maps caches enormous amount of data when in StreetView mode (in my experience)

Note:
This is a screenshot of an older version of FireFox; things might look different in current versions.

[Biff]

OK, thank you, froggie.

- URL:
about:memory

- Press the Minimize memory usage button
- Wait a second for feedback

This is shown after:


So this means each time one clicks that button Firfox gives RAM back immediately, I assume.

But, why does Everything sometimes use so much less RAM(?):


Usually it uses one RAM.

[froggie]

But, why does Everything sometimes use so much less RAM(?):

I an not completely certain what "memory" in Windows 10 shows - in Windows 7 there are several columns for memory that provide much more information; however I believe "memory" means the amount of REAL memory Windows is allowing a program to use.

Pieces (pages) of VIRTUAL storage are loaded into REAL storage as needed. These pages are left loaded into REAL storage for a time, in case the program might need them again. The total REAL storage is reported as "memory"

When other programs are running they also need REAL storage - so Windows reduces the REAL storage available to a program by reducing the time that pages are left loaded in REAL memory -- and the "memory" number will go down. The observable effect of this will range from almost nothing (only rarely used pages are no longer in REAL storage) to severe performance impairment when too many / too large programs are competing for REAL memory.

The "memory" column is mostly useful on a busy system, especially when diagnosing performance problems from memory contention.

[Biff]

OK, thank you very much for the explanation!

[therube]

(

If you use FireFox, you can often reclaim a lot of memory: ... about:memory ... minimize

I've never found that to be of any use.
Perhaps you'd get a momentary reprieve in whatever that situation was (like piss poor browser performance, or the feeling of a potential crash ensuing) that made you go to about:memory in the first place, but in the end, the only "real" answer is to restart the browser & go again.

(Now, perhaps with particular pages, like Google Maps, there is some benefit, but as a general case, I'd say, no.)
)

[therube]

On my end, Everything is consistent.

New instances, so starting from scratch, opening up, indexing & quitting.

1. Everything Service
2. Everything Process - using the Service
3. Everything Process - using Run As Admin

CPU spike as the program opens & starts its' indexing, then subsides.
For the Everything process, memory ramps up, then levels off, remaining a consistent level thereafter.
I/O, much like CPU - unless you're doing a search, which will cause it to change.

So, is there something going on on your end to account for some of the markedly different numbers you're getting?
Previews, perhaps? Or background indexing going on at particular times? Or... ?

[Biff]

CPU spike as the program opens & starts its' indexing, then subsides.
For the Everything process, memory ramps up, then levels off, remaining a consistent level thereafter.
I/O, much like CPU - unless you're doing a search, which will cause it to change.

Yes, the same here.

So, is there something going on on your end to account for some of the markedly different numbers you're getting?
Previews, perhaps? Or background indexing going on at particular times? Or... ?

Not that I know at least. When I synchronize or copy, move Everything runs with about 30 % CPU, I assume that is normal. because of the indexeing. Sometimes a search lasts quite long, may be 20, 30 seconds or even longer, at other times the search works instantly. May be caused by other processes running on my Notebook.

Well, so I now assume Everything runs like it should here and / or other processes somehow are interfering.

Ah, another point for the use of (too) much memory (so to say) here I just realize: since Win (after reinstalling it or caused by other circumstances) just assigns the same drive letter(s) to different drives / recognizes differnet drives as the same / one drive (until one manually assigns a new letter) I have many indexes of drives (not existing) with the same letters.





And so on.