> heap snapshot 87 KB 85 KB 3%
Are those really kilobytes? Not megabytes?
Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
71–80 of 236 posts
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#72does this help the battery life in any way?
RAM is one of your least power hungry components compared to other parts of your computer, such as what generates heat (CPU/GPU) or produces physical motion (fans or spinning drives).
Reducing RAM usage will reduce disk activity, though, so there's that.
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tabs are the new bookmarks.
Sadly they aren't bookmarks and then people moan about memory usage, when they should get a reality check instead.
I don't know if you're familiar with the ins and outs of writing computer programs, but it's actually often practical to make a program that does one thing do another instead. So in this case one obvious thing that could be done is to have a dormant-type (exact terminology TBC) tab.
Such things would have an entry on the tab bar like a normal tab, but wouldn't actually have anything loaded until you clicked. Firefox already supports this sort of thing internally, it looks like, since when you reload a session that had a bunch of open tabs, it doesn't seem to load each tab's contents until you click on it.
(Open such a thing with a particular shortcut, or by transforming an existing tab into a dormant one - obviously equivalent in terms of JS callbacks and so on to closing the window.)
Other possibilities could include multiple types of tabs, and/or alternative UIs for lists of pages you like/pages you want to look at sometime soon.
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can run `curl wttr.in` to get your local weather and 3-day forecast. Or just go to http://wttr.in/
Hmm. "Weather for City: Santa Rosa, Philippines" That's the wrong Santa Rosa, in the wrong country. There's an interesting bug in there somewhere.
> Get city by IP address
> Search weather for city
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#75awesome news then, chrome really needs to improve memory usage, especially when I have lots of tabs open. under firefox I normally had 120 tabs open all the time, and it's fine. with chrome, I dare not to exceed 60 tabs. chrome triggers heavy swap all the time still, which renders the system very sluggish.
I can't recommend this extension enough, The Great Suspender:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/the-great-suspende...
It freezes your tab after a set amount of time, freeing up the memory for each tab.
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#76They mentioned that weather.com crashed their website. Their website is always extremely slow for me as well. It's ridiculous how poorly designed their website can be for such a simple service.
Try Weather Underground: Their graph is the most impressive, useful visualization of weather data around, IME. For example:
https://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast...
Note you can click the controls at the top right of the graph and add/remove elements. The graph is a bit heavy, but that may be necessary to generate the visualization.
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can run `curl wttr.in` to get your local weather and 3-day forecast. Or just go to http://wttr.in/
Hmm. "Weather for City: Santa Rosa, Philippines" That's the wrong Santa Rosa, in the wrong country. There's an interesting bug in there somewhere.
It accepts airport codes, so you can use the one for Sonoma County Airport (assuming it's close by enough).
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can run `curl wttr.in` to get your local weather and 3-day forecast. Or just go to http://wttr.in/
Hmm. "Weather for City: Santa Rosa, Philippines" That's the wrong Santa Rosa, in the wrong country. There's an interesting bug in there somewhere.
TO THE DEVELOPER, FWIW: I'm also in California and it thinks I'm in the Philippines in a town with the same name as one a few miles from here. I assume you use IP to find town, country; throw away country; look up town in a list with country names in alphabetical order (Philippines Note that even if you get the country right it won't be enough, because there is a "Springfield" in each of the 50 states. You'll have to get keep all of the location info you get from the IP lookup, not throw part of it away and attempt to recover it.
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm. "Weather for City: Santa Rosa, Philippines" That's the wrong Santa Rosa, in the wrong country. There's an interesting bug in there somewhere.
TO THE DEVELOPER, FWIW: I'm also in California and it thinks I'm in the Philippines in a town with the same name as one a few miles from here. I assume you use IP to find town, country; throw away country; look up town in a list with country names in alphabetical order (Philippines Note that even if you get the country right it won't be enough, because there is a "Springfield" in each of the 50 states. You'll have to…
As a workaround, you can use your zip code instead. E.g. http://wttr.in/90401
Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
#80awesome news then, chrome really needs to improve memory usage, especially when I have lots of tabs open. under firefox I normally had 120 tabs open all the time, and it's fine. with chrome, I dare not to exceed 60 tabs. chrome triggers heavy swap all the time still, which renders the system very sluggish.
This is mainly because Chrome allocates a process for each page whereas FF only allocates a thread. The important factor being that threads share an address space where processes are allocated their own and thus consume more memory. Separate processes are arguably more secure and of one process crashes it does not take down the whole browser but all this comes at a cost. This cost is very apparent with many tabs open…
> processes are allocated their own and thus consume more memory.
Copy-on-write means this needn't be a large overhead. Only pages that change after forking are duplicated.