Chrome and Firefox 3.5 Memory Usage
dotnetperls.com
Chrome and Firefox 3.5 Memory Usage
1–10 of 46 posts
Re: Chrome and Firefox 3.5 Memory Usage
#2Is the huge memory use from Chrome just because it opens separate processes for each tab? If so, can't some of that memory actually be shared by the OS even though it shows up as duplicated (like what happens if you do vfork?)
Re: Chrome and Firefox 3.5 Memory Usage
#3Just to note - this is done on Vista, which means that the browser stats may look very different on a different OS.
Re: Chrome and Firefox 3.5 Memory Usage
#4You really can't compare a beta or Release Candidate with final versions of other browsers that most definitely will put your numbers off.
Re: Chrome and Firefox 3.5 Memory Usage
#54 GB of memory can be had for $50.
When I use a computer I usually use: browser + music, OR browser + emacs.
I want my browser to be fast and responsive, and the memory isn't being used for anything else.
Re: Chrome and Firefox 3.5 Memory Usage
#6Just to note - this is done on Vista, which means that the browser stats may look very different on a different OS.
Probably the ratio is to stay, since the other platforms are treated with the same indifference by the developers.
Re: Chrome and Firefox 3.5 Memory Usage
#74 GB of memory can be had for $50. When I use a computer I usually use: browser + music, OR browser + emacs. I want my browser to be fast and responsive, and the memory isn't being used for anything else.
I also want my browser to be fast and responsive, but the current trend goes in the other direction. How on Earth can you occupy GBs of memory? How much time does it even take to download a gigabyte of data?
Re: Chrome and Firefox 3.5 Memory Usage
#8You really can't compare a beta or Release Candidate with final versions of other browsers that most definitely will put your numbers off.
Do you have any strong data stating that the final release of some software is in general more memory friendly as opposed to the beta version? I don't have data for the counterpoint either, but I'm willing to bet the developers have other priorities (i.e. bug fixes as opposed to optimization). Once you've maldesigned your software w.r.t. performance, you can't do much except to wait for hardware to catch up.
Re: Chrome and Firefox 3.5 Memory Usage
#9Is the huge memory use from Chrome just because it opens separate processes for each tab? If so, can't some of that memory actually be shared by the OS even though it shows up as duplicated (like what happens if you do vfork?)
Nope - the huge memory usage for Chrome is because this analysis is complete rubbish - it's double counting all the shared memory for each process, as you suggested.
Re: Chrome and Firefox 3.5 Memory Usage
#10Is the huge memory use from Chrome just because it opens separate processes for each tab? If so, can't some of that memory actually be shared by the OS even though it shows up as duplicated (like what happens if you do vfork?)
Nope - the huge memory usage for Chrome is because this analysis is complete rubbish - it's double counting all the shared memory for each process, as you suggested.
He is using Process.PrivateMemorySize64 in .NET. It doesn't double-count, because it only counts non-shared pages.
Non-shared working set pages are probably the most relevant measure, as a process-per-tab model will have lots of address space and may use memory mapping extensively, and so have lots of non-shared pages, but not actually touch many of those pages, and end up with a relatively small working set. However, .NET's Process class doesn't have an equivalent property to Process Explorer's "WS Private" column.
EDIT: Sure enough, a quick eyeball of some Chrome subprocesses using Process Explorer gives me these results:
Private WS Private
1416 460
14916 7952
12084 9780
16780 13972
16164 11336
14812 12040
10284 4444
19140 15400