Do the Pixels have a memory management issue? And if so, can't it just be fixed via update?

[Mike Dee]

Has Google even acknowledged this issue yet with the RAM being too aggressive? Or is this just how things are going to be with 4GB RAM?

They are aware

 

[Tsepz_GP]

Ideally you want that 3.1 to be as close to 3.33, or 90%, as possible. That said, all three of my Pixel 3 devices have also only been hovering around a 3.1 average, including one doing so all summer long.

One of the main tenants of Android resource management is that we want as much RAM in use as possible. 3.1 is only about 82%.

One of the main problems with some of the OEMs doing 6 GB + RAM is that they are trying to force a Windows style mentality upon Android resource management, which a) requires more RAM and b) is the main cause of the stuttering and "lag" that are seen on those devices.

Basically, they need more RAM because they cause more RAM overhead by misusing RAM.

So should they go back to 1GB RAM and have the phone run at 100% utilization all the time?

I've seen this statement repeated so many times before, even with the 1GB RAM Galaxy S3 Exynos which became a pig on Jellybean as it never kept anything in memory and simply got annoying to use. The USA got the 2GB Snapdragon so those users never experienced that issue, but this Pixel memory issue reminds me of what my Galaxy S3 Exynos was like. Same issue when I got iOS11 on the older Apple iPad 4, it could barely keep 3 windows in Safari going in the background.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

So should they go back to 1GB RAM and have the phone run at 100% utilization all the time?

I've seen this statement repeated so many times before, even with the 1GB RAM Galaxy S3 Exynos which became a pig on Jellybean as it never kept anything in memory and simply got annoying to use. The USA got the 2GB Snapdragon so those users never experienced that issue, but this Pixel memory issue reminds me of what my Galaxy S3 Exynos was like. Same issue when I got iOS11 on the older Apple iPad 4, it could barely keep 3 windows in Safari going in the background.

Now it's a question of optimization. You want sufficient RAM to be able to do anything that you need to be able to do, but also no more than that. Given how low resource most tasks in this operating system hard having 8 gigs is overhead is more problematic than only having 4 if you're only using 3.7 GB. But that is only if you're using it the way that it's intended to be. if you are hard stringing your RAM to behave the same way that it would it windows, then you do need more.

 

[Robisan]

You want sufficient RAM to be able to do anything that you need to be able to do, ...

Define that. I need/want to my 6 or 8 (or more?!) most recently used apps available without reloading from storage. It appears 4GB is not sufficient to do this on Pixel skinned devices.

Given how low resource most tasks in this operating system hard having 8 gigs is overhead is more problematic than only having 4 if you're only using 3.7 GB.

If you have 8GB of RAM why would they limit usage to 3.7GB? Why do you assume or impose that limitation?

But that is only if you're using it the way that it's intended to be.

Intended by whom? God?

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

Define that. I need/want to my 6 or 8 (or more?!) most recently used apps available without reloading from storage. It appears 4GB is not sufficient to do this on Pixel skinned devices.


If you have 8GB of RAM why would they limit usage to 3.7GB? Why do you assume or impose that limitation?


Intended by whom? God?

Intended by the the designers of the operating system.

 

[Robisan]

Intended by the the designers of the operating system.

Ah, so killing apps and forcing reloads is a feature, not a bug. It's an affirmative decision that it's what users "need." No thanks.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

Ah, so killing apps and forcing reloads is a feature, not a bug. It's an affirmative decision that it's what users "need." No thanks.

No, that's not at all what I, or anyone said.

What I and everyone else who has ever talked about this subject has said, is that Android is designed to use as much of its RAM as possible and does its best when it is managing activity dynamically in order to do that. the same reason the apps like greenify and task killers and all of that sort of nonsense are detrimental to resource management, is that they're using an approach that is in conflict with the design of the system.

But if you want to have a sincere conversation about what exactly the bug is that's being seen here you can either read the rest of the thread, which includes links and goes kind of into detail on exactly what's wrong. Another option would be to spend a few minutes reading about how Linux and Android resource management works. But what is not going to work out very well is trolling me, and or anyone else, by just making things up and making smartalec responses against your own strawman.

You see this is a really straightforward problem where the battery saving functionality built into the operating system is being done on the Pixels in a way that ends up being over-aggressive. and if you had read the thread you would know that because it's stated multiple times and the evidence for it being that specific issue is presented as is the evidence for the fact that this is not being caused by a lack of RAM.

 

[Robisan]

But if you want to have a sincere conversation ...

You would've addressed all the questions I asked @124 in good faith instead of addressing only one with a curt answer while avoiding the others.

What do users "need (want) to be able to do?" What did you mean by that @123? The answer is pretty foundational to the issue here.

Why limit RAM usage to 3.7GB regardless of RAM onboard? Just ignored...

...Followed directly in @123 by "...It('s) the way that it's intended to be." Of course Google designed that. Duh. My question to you was effectively what makes 3.7GB usage some perfect number?

The entire thrust of this thread (if you'd bother to read and consider it) is about whether Google's RAM design and choices meet what users need/want. It's pretty hilarious and telling that you'd view that as "trolling," "strawman" and "smartalec."

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

You would've addressed all the questions I asked @124 in good faith instead of addressing only one with a curt answer while avoiding the others.

What do users "need (want) to be able to do?" What did you mean by that @123? The answer is pretty foundational to the issue here.

Why limit RAM usage to 3.7GB regardless of RAM onboard? Just ignored...

...Followed directly in @123 by "...It('s) the way that it's intended to be." Of course Google designed that. Duh. My question to you was effectively what makes 3.7GB usage some perfect number?

The entire thrust of this thread (if you'd bother to read and consider it) is about whether Google's RAM design and choices meet what users need/want. It's pretty hilarious and telling that you'd view that as "trolling," "strawman" and "smartalec."

No one has suggested a cap of 3.7, regardless of the quantity of RAM. That number only makes sense as a portion of RAM in a 4 GB device, because it's a ratio. If you have 6 GB, you'd want to be using more. If you only have 3 GB of RAM, it'd be lower for obvious reasons.

The problem illustrated earlier is that devices that have more RAM still aren't generally using much more than that, so their percent of RAM in use is lower, which is actually a performance constraint or it's own. Android (and it's Linux base) resource management works best at a very high % of RAM in use. Windows, on the other hand, performs best with more available RAM. Samsung and others who are pushing RAM higher are typically also tweaking resource management on their devices in a way that is far less efficient than Android is naturally.

No one has suggested that Google designed Android to kick apps out of memory. That wouldn't make sense. What was said was that Google designed Android's resource management with the same approach as it's Linux roots, to dynamically assign resources as needed and to keep as much RAM in use as it can, given the situational needs.

As the thread clearly indicates, we're discussing a software issue that can categorically be ruled out as a possible hardware issue using the exact same logic used to prove that point earlier.

When you misrepresent what I said and also misrepresent the facts, given that they'd been previously laid out in some detail, that's definitely suspect. If I'm misunderstanding your intentions then please clarify your understanding of the over-aggressive resource management problem that we're discussing.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

Also I apologise but the lost numbers you have don't correspond to anything on my screen, so I wasn't able to follow exactly what you were referencing. My post numbers are different.

 

[Robisan]

When you misrepresent what I said and also misrepresent the facts..,

Respectfully, I did not do that. I quoted your post @123 (post number 123 of this thread - see post number in upper right corner of each post) and asked you questions.

No one has suggested a cap of 3.7, regardless of the quantity of RAM.

I'm sorry, that's pretty much exactly what you said here:

Given how low resource most tasks in this operating system hard having 8 gigs is overhead is more problematic than only having 4 if you're only using 3.7 GB.

As the thread clearly indicates, we're discussing a software issue that can categorically be ruled out as a possible hardware issue using the exact same logic used to prove that point earlier.

Actually, to my reading this thread is discussing several RAM-related issues (especially after the mods combined two different threads into this thread). There's an issue where some apps crash, often (though not exclusively) related to camera usage. These occurrences are most likely software related and probably unrelated to the amount of RAM onboard. There is also the more general question (started in the other thread and brought over here) of whether 4GB is enough and relatedly of Google's management of RAM (aggressively killing apps). This later issue goes directly to the question of "what people need/want," which most assuredly is a topic of this thread.

 

[mustang7757]

you guys need to cool off before it becomes a note 9 thread

 

[anon(10092459)]

you guys need to cool off before it becomes a note 9 thread

Lol! ... I think that was all you... and that other dude, Stang! We're a civililized bunch over here on Pixel 3 boards.. /s.

 

[mustang7757]

Lol! ... I think that was all you... and that other dude, Stang! We're a civililized bunch over here on Pixel 3 boards.. /s.

Lol

 

[anon(10092459)]

Jokes aside, I think there may be some loss in continuity since the threads were combined from they're original topic.

4GB of RAM is more than enough for the Pixel 3. As it's been discussed there MAY be a software issue, that I'm sure will be corrected in the coming days, for SOME users. But the RAM Google's put in the Pixel is more than adequate, from a hardware perspective.

 

[chezm]

Honestly, been reading parts of this thread and although I’m super pumped to get my pixel this upcoming week...I’m also paranoid all I’ll be doing is judging it like a lot of others. I’m a pretty average user, maybe 2-3 hours a day SoT and don’t game at all...didn’t expect to get worried but all the conversations got me doubting coming back to android and shamefully bringing it back within 14 days for a XS.

 

[mustang7757]

Honestly, been reading parts of this thread and although I’m super pumped to get my pixel this upcoming week...I’m also paranoid all I’ll be doing is judging it like a lot of others. I’m a pretty average user, maybe 2-3 hours a day SoT and don’t game at all...didn’t expect to get worried but all the conversations got me doubting coming back to android and shamefully bringing it back within 14 days for a XS.

If you go that way , in my opinion get the Xr cheaper with the specs of the others

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

I'm sorry, that's pretty much exactly what you said here:

"Given how low resource most tasks in this operating system hard having 8 gigs is overhead is more problematic than only having 4 if you're only using 3.7 GB".

Restructuring that sentence,

"If you are only using 3.7 GB, given how low resource most tasks in this operating system are, having 8 gigs of overhead is more problematic than only having 4".

Another way of stating it: Assuming two devices are using a similar amount of resources, the one that does so with fewer resources is more efficient. Being more efficient translates to increases in performance (speed, smoothness), battery and stability.

 

[Torisen1]

For my use case, Google News, Android Central, Droid Life, The Verge, Android Auto, Text Messages, Camera, Weather Underground,Music on Bluetooth headphones, some Hey Googles and phone calls (although I haven't made a call yet), I have only one minor ding. Sometimes when I try to open Weather Underground it won't start until I remove some apps from memory.

Oh and Podcasts

 

[TraderGary]

For my use case, Google News, Android Central, Droid Life, The Verge, Android Auto, Text Messages, Camera, Weather Underground,Music on Bluetooth headphones, some Hey Googles and phone calls (although I haven't made a call yet), I have only one minor ding. Sometimes when I try to open Weather Underground it won't start until I remove some apps from memory.

I have my personal weather station on Weather Underground. I use the site multiple times a day and I can certainly attest that the site at times is exceedingly slow even to the point of being unresponsive.