Jukka Larja (roskakori2006.delete@this.gmail.com) on February 28, 2019 5:31 am wrote:
> Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on February 27, 2019 11:49 am wrote:
> > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on February 27, 2019 7:16 am wrote:
> > > Jukka Larja (roskakori2006.delete@this.gmail.com) on February 27, 2019 7:11 am wrote:
> > > > Howard Chu (hyc.delete@this.symas.com) on February 27, 2019 6:21 am wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Note - 2GB is actually plenty to be productive in C. It's not enough
> > > > > for parallel compiles of C++ unfortunately. IMO this is the fault of C++,
> > > > > not of the ARM boxes.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately 2 GB isn't enough for the browser I need to run
> > > > to be able to write anything non-trivial with any language.
> > > >
> > > > (Not that I would be in the market for an ARM box even if they were a bit faster than
> > > > x86 ones. However, I find it absurd that 2 GBs is considered "plenty" for any use.)
> > > >
> > > > -JLarja
> > >
> > > Any amount of memory isn't enough for the browser.
> > > At least for the browser I use most (FF, x86-64, Windows).
> > >
> >
> >
> > I don't understand why Firefox continues to have memory issues on Windows when they
> > seem to have fixed them on Linux. I've had my Firefox browser running since January
> > 3rd with about 30 windows and almost 80 tabs total, and it has an RSS of 1.4 GB.
>
> I don't know what RSS would correspond to in Windows speak, but 1.4 GB doesn't sound
> good if 2 GB is all you have and you need to run some other software too.
>
> I can't really tell what my Firefox is using, since it's made up from nine processes.
> Seven of those have private bytes in range from 300-650 MBs. Two are smaller. I'm
> also running Chrome which is made up of 31 considerable smaller processes.
>
> An instant messenger wrapper Franz that I use for e.g. WhatsApp and Telegram, is made up of 12
> processes which have total private bytes amount close to Firefox. I'm not saying that makes any
> sense, but that's the world we are living in. I choose to solve the problem with 32 GBs of memory
> in a laptop. Someone else might choose to use Bitlbee/whapp-irc/Teleirc and Irssi.
>
> > A few years ago I had to restart weekly because it would get up to about 5 GB (with fewer windows/tabs
> > since I had to be more careful) and I only had 8 GB installed in my PC at that time...
>
> I haven't had any problems with Firefox leaking memory for few years now and since 64 bit
> version hit mainstream, I haven't had any out of memory problems either. I usually restart
> Firefox when it offers to update or when Windows does. That said, I just retired my last
> computer with just 16 GBs of memory and haven't seriously used a browser on anything with
> less than that for years, so even if Firefox' working set was 4 GB, I wouldn't notice.
>
> If I was just keeping one or few pages open, the average memory consumption
> would probably be pretty reasonable. The problem is that it doesn't take more
> than one or two sites with bad behaviour and things get unreasonable soon.
>
> -JLarja

I don't quite understand this preoccupation with browser memory usage. If you're system has 32 gigs of RAM don't you want your browser to use some of that caching frequently visited web pages the same way you want your OS to use some of that caching files? Is this actually something that is causing you problems or are you just looking at the size of the memory footprint and saying "I don't see why it needs that much"?