Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

prerender.cloud

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 236 posts

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#141

Post by kofejnik »

nazri1 wrote: post #104
ausjke wrote: 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.

My laptop has no ssd. This sluggishness brings back memories of linux trashing the swap partition when it ran out of memory back in the early 2000s. Quite understandable since back then most people don't have that much RAM (64Mb?). Nowadays I have 8Gb on my laptop and I run linux with swap disabled. The only disk trashing that I'm having nowadays is due to chrome, and it's definitely not due to swap but the effect is…

put chrome cache on a ram disk, helped me a lot last time I had a spinning hdd

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#142

Post by wtallis »

chipperyman573 wrote: post #81
wtallis wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More specifically about OS X: support for 32-bit hardware was dropped in 2011, but support for 64-bit applications has been available on all 64-bit hardware since 2007, even if you were running the 32-bit OS kernel. Apple handled that transition way better than Microsoft.

It helps that Apple controls the hardware of their devices.

It does help some, but probably the biggest advantage is that they simply didn't have to support x86 machines from before 2006. By that point, ACPI, AHCI, EHCI, OHCI, HDA drivers would get you a working system, except for 3D graphics and networking. That's why Hackintosh systems are viable: basic PC hardware is extremely standardized now compared to what it was in the 1990s.

Apple's hardware platform control helped them cut down on the number of network drivers they needed to implement, and their decision to do the 3D graphics drivers in-house didn't save them much effort but made things a lot more straightforward.

By contrast, Windows 7 officially supports GPUs from 2001 running on systems that could be quite a bit older, from the days when there were half a dozen third-party chipset vendors that couldn't properly implement a spec even when they were trying to make standard interfaces. Windows 10 moves the cutoff forward quite a bit with its NX bit requirement, but still targets a diversity of core system components that simply didn't exist by the time Apple entered the x86 market.

Microsoft and Apple both have to contend with pretty much the same driver challenges for peripherals like printers, although it tends to be easier to put those drivers in userspace where 32-bit vs 64-bit isn't a showstopper.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#143

Post by mkl »

wheelerwj wrote: post #124
bogomipz wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah Ok I thought it might be an OS utility. Thanks for the tip. I also highly recommend session buddy for excessive tab folks. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/session-buddy/edac...

chrome already has this behavior built in, start where I left off under settings. Is this different?

Chrome's session restore silently loses tabs when you have a lot open. It is completely unreliable in my experience. Sometimes a window will come back with half the tabs missing, which is obvious, but when it's only a couple missing, it's much harder to even know.

Also, Session Buddy lets you export sessions to back them up and move them between computers, etc.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#144

Post by wamatt »

ikeboy wrote: post #140
wamatt wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good catch. All the quoted memory figures are for private memory.

The shared memory figures in the session test (10 tabs and 15 extensions) were all at 0 in both Chrome 55 and 54.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#145

Post by ikeboy »

wamatt wrote: post #144
ikeboy wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good catch. All the quoted memory figures are for private memory. The shared memory figures in the session test (10 tabs and 15 extensions) were all at 0 in both Chrome 55 and 54.

Oh it's the other way around for me. Shared are around 50mb for each extension.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#146

Post by edblarney »

pitaj wrote: post #87
edblarney wrote: post #62

I'm still getting full white and black screens on Chrome 54. It's 2016.

What do you mean? Have you tried reinstalling? Updating graphics drivers? Turning off hardware acceleration?

Tried everything except turning off hardware accel.

But that should not be it - because it works fine on startup.

Every once and a while, screen goes black for most pages, even on reload.

Have to restart.

I shouldn't have to tinker to get a web browser to just load pages.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#147

Post by wtallis »

mishac wrote: post #108
wtallis wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More specifically about OS X: support for 32-bit hardware was dropped in 2011, but support for 64-bit applications has been available on all 64-bit hardware since 2007, even if you were running the 32-bit OS kernel. Apple handled that transition way better than Microsoft.

To be fair, microsoft's userbase requires backwards compatibility a lot more than apple's does, since Macs are largely consumer systems rather than enterprise ones. Microsoft got flack for dropping 16bit app support in 64bit OSes (since 64 bit windows doesn't have NTVDM). They'd be flayed alive if they dropped 32bit support.

32 vs 64-bit app support is quite separate from 32 vs 64-bit kernel-space drivers. 32-bit operating systems need 32-bit drivers and 64-bit operating systems need 64-bit drivers. 64-bit operating systems can run 64-bit apps and 32-bit apps.

Crucially, however, 32-bit Mac OS X 10.5 could run 64-bit apps just fine. That, combined with OS X's universal binary support, made it easy to start deploying 64-bit application code far earlier than most Windows apps began transitioning.

Most of Apple's computer models were only available with 32-bit x86 for less than a year, so the installed base that needed their applications to still be 32-bit was minuscule compared to the installed base of 32-bit Windows editions that couldn't run 64-bit apps even if the CPU was 64-bit capable. Most Windows application developers faced bigger challenges in deploying 64-bit code than Mac app developers, and the Windows devs' work would benefit a much smaller fraction of their userbase. Windows app developers don't switch to 64-bit unless they absolutely have to. (e.g. this year's 64-bit re-release of Skyrim, to accommodate the address space requirements of heavy modding. Skyrim was originally released in late 2011 as a 32-bit only game despite listing CPU requirements that couldn't be satisfied by any 32-bit CPU.)

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#148

Post by xorxornop »

truth_sentinell wrote: post #112
sker wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're better. If I bookmark something with any service, chances of me ever checking that out again drop to nearly zero. Tabs, by virtue of being there bugging you, are bookmarks, to-do lists, and task reminders all in one.

No, they aren't. I don't know about you, but I can't have more than 20 tabs open and consciously be aware of the content. I can't think of people like above, having 120 tabs. It's probably a waste of time and resources. First because you can't possibly hold in your memory 120 tabs, thus you'll have to visit them or read the title to remind you why is it there on the first place. With bookmarks at least you can use th…

Naw, at least with me I seem to be able to by treating the tab ordering as a conceptual discovery ordering. That is, I remember what things I learned / researched prior to and following each tab. It's lossy, but because each has a unique relationship with its surrounding concepts there's plenty of opportunities for parity-like behaviour; redundancy.

When researching a thing I'll open up some high level page about it, then do breadth-first searches of tab contents, opening up new tabs whenever I see something that looks interesting, has wider implications, or possibly has some weaker relationship to a thing with one or both of those properties and I think I might be able to traverse the concept graph this way to find it / them.

So I end up with a sort of flat tree where it corresponds almost directly to my earlier thought graph which produced them. I can work with maybe 200 this way... But not more. Unless I open them in different windows - sometimes different browsers, actually, to help further differentiate/compartmentalise them (eg. I'll use this strategy for largely disparate topics). Then, well, I'm not sure where I top out, all I can say is I once crashed my box from out of memory (not running swap), and it's a 32GB box soooo... I dunno.

There are likely many others that work this way. Perhaps it's not common, but I also feel that it's very unlikely unique!

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#149

Post by ausjke »

mschuster91 wrote: post #138
true_religion wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (wa…

Drupal 8 pretty much killed my love for drupal, I'm now switching to wordpress, though I miss drupal's book module in particular.

Re: Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54

#150

Post by dattaway »

hackuser wrote: post #76
niij wrote: post #10

They 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.

Weather Underground also has a lightweight telnet service. Telnet to rainmaker.wunderground.com and enjoy the super fast ascii text interface.
Post reply on HN