Jump to content

Re: Defraggler uses a non-stop 8,8+ GB RAM


Willy2

Recommended Posts

Hazelnut closed this thread

http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=42174

before I could add another reply to that thread. So, I opened a new thread.

 

I did some research on my computer system (see my signature for system details) with some 170.000 files. I put the latest version of Defraggler to work and memory usage increased from ~ 4 MB to ~ 110 MB when it analyzed the drive.

After finishing the analysis memory usage went down to ~ 80 MB. So, Defraggler does make brave attempt to reduce memory usage. (minus ~ 30 MB). Only PcWinTech's Cleanmem reduces the memory usage down to a mere ~ 2 MB again. But I don't whether or not that would "break" anything Defraggler stores in the memory.

 

When I, after running Cleanmem, put DF to work again then it seems this memory usage reduction (Cleanmem) didn't have a noticable negative impact on the speed with wich DF analyses & defragments a (logical) drive. But that's with a memory usage of ~ 22%. I don't know whether or not it would a difference when a system has a memory usage as high as "Maki" had.

 

I also looked at the size of the file cache (with Cleanmem's Mini Monitor) but after opening the program itself the size of the filecache actually never/barely increased or decreased. In that regard, Defraggler seems to be trying to keep the filecache as small as possible as well.

Edited by Willy2

System setup: http://speccy.piriform.com/results/gcNzIPEjEb0B2khOOBVCHPc

 

A discussion always stimulates the braincells !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you crazy? Having a physical system memory 10 GB of RAM or more GB RAM, I do not need stupid optimizers. "This Your ALL Stupid optimizers" RAM, which does not do anything except slow the computer. Allocate max. memory and relieve it. But for other applications start to walk extremely slowly and circle closes !!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Another moderator has already closed this subject as maki seems not to want any solution other than the developers to look into and (if a bug exists) squash the issue. This was not @Willy2, an invitation to reopen the discussion (read fight) in a second thread. Following my intial inclination, and Hazelnut's actual action, of closing that thread, I now close this one.

 

Maki, the developers read all threads and I'm sure they will take you concern for memory use into the lab.

 

 

ADVICE FOR USING CCleaner'S REGISTRY INTEGRITY SECTION

DON'T JUST CLEAN EVERYTHING THAT'S CHECKED OFF.

Do your Registry Cleaning in small bits (at the very least Check-mark by Check-mark)

ALWAYS BACKUP THE ENTRY, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU'LL BREAK IF YOU DON'T.

Support at https://support.ccleaner.com/s/?language=en_US

Pro users file a PRIORITY SUPPORT via email support@ccleaner.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.