Andrew Clough (someone.delete@this.somewhere.com) on February 28, 2019 10:32 am wrote:
> 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"?

What? I just wrote that it doesn't matter for me, because I have solved the issue by having 32 GBs of RAM. The case I considered problematic was running browser in 2 GBs (in addition to other stuff that should be running).

-JLarja