Live data from Hacker News

Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

prerender.cloud

131–140 of 236 posts

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#131
post #29

awesome 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.

Better use OneTab extension, https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/onetab/chphlpgkkbo...

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suspends tabs after a set period of disuse. Great for people who open a ton of tabs in Chrome.

But then you miss out on the new chance at life http://www.theonion.com/article/accidentally-closing-browser...

23? is that a lot? that's about normal for me, and i didn't think i was too bad. my office mate usually has a couple hundred tabs open.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#133
post #114
post #42

Wow. My normal session now leaves me with around 8gb free out of 16, compared to 1-2gb free previously. Gmail is using less than 1GB again. I might even disable The Great Suspender, and stop killing tabs that use up lots of memory. Whoever worked on this, you deserve a raise. QOL improvements for so many people.

Are you using Classic Gmail or Google Inbox?

Google inbox web app is painfully slow for me

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#134
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

you can also use basic text search, which works internationally: http://wttr.in/santa%20rosa,%20ca

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#135
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. D'oh!

Yes, and here's another d'oh: I learned long ago, years before The Simpson's show existed, that there was a Springfield in every state. The show's creators may have heard the same urban legend back in those days before we had that oracle called Google. But, for the first time in all these years, I just went off to check out this claim for myself, and I'm wrong. There is no Springfield, Utah, or Alaska, or North Carolina, for example, and I find no evidence there ever was one in Utah (I didn't check the others), so it's not something that WAS true when I was a kid but no longer is. I don't think it was ever true.

D'oh! (All these years.... How many other things do I "know" that aren't true...?)

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#136
post #42

Wow. My normal session now leaves me with around 8gb free out of 16, compared to 1-2gb free previously. Gmail is using less than 1GB again. I might even disable The Great Suspender, and stop killing tabs that use up lots of memory. Whoever worked on this, you deserve a raise. QOL improvements for so many people.

For me the situation is perhaps not quite as clear cut. On the one hand I'm seeing nice improvements in the large memory hogging tabs. For example a typical reddit thread was reduced from 399 MB down to 295 MB.

On the other hand, it appears all extensions now have a >50MB memory usage floor. For example, the Authy extension was using 5MB under Chrome 54. It's now using 55MB on Chrome 55. Similarly the simple archive.is button extension went from 5MB to 55MB. That's a lot of RAM for spartan functionality.

For the record, I'm using the chrome://system/ page to compare before and after.

That said, it may be possible the additional memory usage for extensions may be a reporting change as opposed to an actual memory increase. Unsure either way.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#137

Nice... but why is it faster/memory is more important to me. I suppose I could look at the changelog but it would have been nice if the post guessed why.

JavaScript engine (aka V8) improvements, per the post they linked:

http://v8project.blogspot.ca/2016/10/fall-cleaning-optimizin...

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#138
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

weather.com uses drupal7 + apache2 + ubuntu + angularjs, not sure why it is that slow, I use weather.com once a while just fine though.

It is only because of AngularJS + Ads. This is a slow down caused by browser rendering/parsing/JS execution. I'm not sure what the server operating system would have to do with it.

Drupal can be a real PITA to properly set up with caching. If you're running anything above 10 req/s your server is going to melt without. Oh, and it's always worth a try to swap the default search for Elasticsearch, Solr or any other external engine.

That AngularJS is a slow piece of ... is another part. I coded up a simple Twitter client using Cordova with Angular, scrapped and rebuilt it in jQuery with Cordova (was a test if one can actually build a backendless Twitter app). Such speed, many awesome.

I guess many of the "hipster" JS devs use the latest, max-spec macbook/iphone only and totally ignore the rest of ordinary PCs/average Android phone, or they wouldn't dare to touch Angular and friends even with a pole.

Source: operating a couple Drupal instances.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#139

Great news! A simple weather website, with about 1 MB worth of actual content (text, markup, images, layout) now only uses 250 MB of memory. And it only takes a few seconds to load on a 100Mbps+ connection whenever I click a menu item (that's with all ads and tracking blocked and most of the stuff already cached). I'm sorry, I just don't see any reason to celebrate.

I personally just do a Google search for 'weather' if I want local weather. Otherwise, 'weather '. Very fast and lightweight.

[deleted]

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#140
post #136
post #42

Wow. My normal session now leaves me with around 8gb free out of 16, compared to 1-2gb free previously. Gmail is using less than 1GB again. I might even disable The Great Suspender, and stop killing tabs that use up lots of memory. Whoever worked on this, you deserve a raise. QOL improvements for so many people.

For me the situation is perhaps not quite as clear cut. On the one hand I'm seeing nice improvements in the large memory hogging tabs. For example a typical reddit thread was reduced from 399 MB down to 295 MB. On the other hand, it appears all extensions now have a >50MB memory usage floor. For example, the Authy extension was using 5MB under Chrome 54. It's now using 55MB on Chrome 55. Similarly the simple archive.…

Private versus shared memory from chrome://system. I suspect shared doesn't really matter.

I'm using shift+esc task manager, and top to see overall system free ram.

Post reply on HN