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

Browsers eating RAM

flotato.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 171 posts

Re: Browsers eating RAM

#121

Post by ASalazarMX »

mayli wrote: post #91
ASalazarMX wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a side note, GMail memory usage has improved vastly (probably because it was monstruous to begin with). Years ago my GMail tab consumed almost 500 Mb, but nowadays it uses less than 100, with my same usage patterns.

300MB onload, dropped to 240MB after idling for few minutes. Are you sure it's using less than 100MB? in comparison with the post, it takes about 500MB ram, which is weird for such simple webpage. This HN page takes 40MB.

Oh sorry, I measured it on Firefox. Chrome on Linux started at 160 Mb, and it settled around 150. I've disabled Hangouts, and the right sidebar, so that might account for the differences.

Funny how Firefox reports a third of that, although IDK if Chrome and Firefox task managers are directly comparable.

Re: Browsers eating RAM

#122

Post by Spivak »

airpoint wrote: post #94
deanclatworthy wrote: post #50

The whole browser situation at the moment is so incredibly frustrating. I will NOT browse the internet without a fully-fledged adblocker - no pihole is not enough. This means pretty much only using Firefox - but I have about 10 tabs open at the moment, each using over 500mb of ram while idle. What on earth they are doing I don't know... and I find it very sluggish when playing video. Chrome is my daily browser, even…

Wipr is what you’re after. “Native” adblocker for Safari. I’ve switched to it from uBlock years ago and not looked back since.

Wipr is fantastic! It basically convinced me that manifest v3 wasn’t going to be the end of the world after using it in Safari.

Re: Browsers eating RAM

#123

Post by 3gg »

Most commercial Websites today are shamefully-engineered pieces of complete and utter garbage, even with Ad blockers on. I have resorted to using no-script and whitelisting specific sites manually. In the old days, games and cool graphics would drive hardware upgrades. Today it's the web.

Re: Browsers eating RAM

#124

Post by ta1234567890 »

josephg wrote: post #113
topspin wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know when I've clicked on a medium.com link because my CPU fan spins up chewing on all the framework junk.

In Firefox reddit (new version) will sit at about 50% of a core on my laptop. Simple mouse hover effects on the page lag about half a second behind my actual mouse cursor. YouTube (while not playing a video) will use about 15% of my cpu, even when idle in a background tab. I’m not sure if the bug is in Firefox or in the sites, but it’s awful. I don’t understand how these issues don’t get fixed immediately. I thought…

> In Firefox reddit (new version)

Lately been using teddit.net for browsing reddit and it’s been great.

Re: Browsers eating RAM

#125

Post by higerordermap »

KirillPanov wrote: post #112
c22 wrote: post #76

I used to have this problem, I routinely keep well over 100 tabs open. Then I disabled default loading of javascript and now I never hear my fans.

In spite of how it seems the "web keeps getting bloatier", something did in fact improve during the last year or two. A whole lot more websites now at least load with javascript turned off. That definitely wasn't the case around ~2016 or so. I tried disabling javascript a few years ago and the entire web broke. Tried it again last year and have had much more success.

Servers side rendering for SEO purposes I guess.

Re: Browsers eating RAM

#126

Post by higerordermap »

chii wrote: post #24
barbacoa wrote: post #18

Long ago man landed on the moon using 4 kb of ram. Today it takes 1 gb of RAM to open a chrome tab.

and that 1gb of ram costs less than $5. That 4kb of ram costs, i bet, way more than the inflation adjusted $5 back then. And chrome's UI is much more fancy, displays way more data, and has way more functionality, than the UI that was powered by the 4kb of ram. It's a cute comparison, but ultimately, it's meaningless.

I bet that interface loaded faster than a modern website tho..

Re: Browsers eating RAM

#127

Post by olliej »

Leszek wrote: post #78

(Disclaimer: V8 dev) This post is unfortunately nonsense, because it's making a fundamental measurement error: not including renderer processes for Safari, and only measuring the browser process (which should be expected to be roughly O(1) memory in the number of tabs). To the author's credit, they _are trying_ to include child processes - I'm not sure why, but `psrecord` seems to not (in local testing) include child…

I was looking at those graphs and thinking exactly that, but that’s a byproduct of google marketing making it sound like chrome is the only browser that does that :D

Re: Browsers eating RAM

#128

Post by fomine3 »

higerordermap wrote: post #125
KirillPanov wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In spite of how it seems the "web keeps getting bloatier", something did in fact improve during the last year or two. A whole lot more websites now at least load with javascript turned off. That definitely wasn't the case around ~2016 or so. I tried disabling javascript a few years ago and the entire web broke. Tried it again last year and have had much more success.

Servers side rendering for SEO purposes I guess.

RIP #!

Re: Browsers eating RAM

#129

Post by young_unixer »

boring_twenties wrote: post #115
souprock wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but the situation still looks shameful. What exactly prohibits a web site from consuming all my RAM? I have never once seen a browser make a misbehaving site wait (frozen with no CPU) for me to confirm that sucking up more RAM is acceptable to me. What happens instead is that I hit a wall of slowness, forcing me to press the power button and lose all my other work. It's not very gradual, I think due to the nature…

What ever happened to computers being at least somewhat usable when all RAM is in use? I seem to remember that being a pretty common condition back in the 90's. Things would get slow, sure, but not completely and utterly hosed. When this happened to me recently (unattended Firefox process used up all RAM) the machine was simply never able to recover, even after killing the offending process (thereby making 30GB or so…

For some reason, Linux is specially bad at working under load, both memory (too many applications & browser tabs open) and I/O (copying large files into USB drive).
Post reply on HN