6 ms·

Is E10S going to replace the current model? I mean - is the plan to drop the choice when E10S is stable/works for all known scenarios? I'm asking because I mig

Is E10S going to replace the current model? I mean - is the plan to drop the choice when E10S is stable/works for all known scenarios? I'm asking because I might have a bit of a problem with my tab addiction (my phone regularly reaches 60+, my laptop or desktop probable sit around 2-3 times that for weeks at a time) and I don't think that'll translate well into a process-per-tab model. Yes, I know about bookmarks, read-later tools and that this isn't the healthiest habit.

sp332 10y ago
FF doesn't use process per tab. It will use one process for chrome and one for all the content rendering for all tabs.
- dkns 10y ago
  It will in the future from what I understand. You can enable it right now in nightly.
  - sp332 10y ago
    You can set a certain max number of processes. I don't think there's a way to explicitly do process-per-tab or process-per-domain.
    - johnp_ 10y ago
      There isn't. It is planned to add an algorithm for grouping tabs into processes and dynamically adding/removing content processes, but that's low priority right now, because the current focus lies on getting the single content process e10s ready for the release channel. More info in the e10s-multi bug and its dependencies: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=e10s-multi&hide_resolved=1 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=e10s-... (also a nice way to look for known issues that might affect you if you're interested in trying out e10s-multi)
- ascagnel_ 10y ago
  What benefits does that provide over 1 process per tab?
  - RussianCow 10y ago
    Presumably, you don't have the overhead of running a separate process for each tab, which adds up quickly when you have 50+ tabs open.
  - sp332 10y ago
    Edit: I misread your comment. As RussianCow mentioned, it's to keep resource usage under control. The main advantage is that browser chrome is still responsive during rendering. You can switch tabs, open menus, resize windows etc. Also, rendering is a little faster since you don't have to interrupt it constantly to keep the UI responsive. And if the content process dies, all your tabs are still "open" and you can reload the content.
    - RussianCow 10y ago
      I think the parent was asking about the advantage over Chrome's model of having one process per tab, not over the current single-process model.
      - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
        Shot in the dark here, but Chrome was developed back when it was common to have a single core CPU without any hyper-threading. An easy way to balance load is this scenario is just make a bunch of processes and have the OS do all the heavy lifting in regards to scheduling as everything has to share that one thread. You also get the benefit of bad processes dying without taking down the entire browser. At the time Chrome was coming around, browser stability was a larger issue than it is today. Now that everyone has a multi-core cpu, it makes more sense to not really worry too much about scheduling. The OS will just move stuff off a busy core and onto a less busy core dynamically. So why not just separate the UI front end from the rendering and call it a day? Why bother with so many processes when you have cpu cores to spare? The UI and renderer will run in their own cores when they get too cpu hungry. Also, if the renderer crashes, no biggie, the UI just re-renders everything.
dr_zoidberg 10y ago
When they first announced this model I ended up in the group that had this "feature" enabled. It was completely useless. I was almost about to change the browser for Chrome because I could barely broswe a few minutes before it crashed due to excessive CPU and memory usage. And then I got another update which reverted back to the old single process architecture. If it's as messed up as it was back then, it looks like I'll be having to switch broswer. I have a similar usage pattern as yours, with the added disadvantage that I group my tabs in windows, and every window seems to carry a big overhead. Btw, I'm not "memory constrained", I always have 2 to 5 GB free memory, but once the firefox process is over 1,5 GB then trouble begins, at 2 GB it's about to crash, and over that it can sometimes survive as large as 2,5 GB, but I've never seen it use more -- it always crashes before reaching 3 GB.
- 01Michael10 10y ago
  What? You were going to switch browsers because you were having problems using a beta or nightly version? I have an idea... Use the release version!
  - dr_zoidberg 10y ago
    Release has even worse memory issues, I had to go beta to get memory usage down and prevent crashes in the first place.
    - 01Michael10 10y ago
      Memory issues? I have have never had any memory issues with Firefox and it's been almost crash free now for the last six releases. It's 2016 now so maybe it's time to upgrade your box and it's 4 GB of RAM. EDIT: How is Firefox eating up to 3Gb of RAM on your machine? I never seen mine go over 1.5GB and that's been after a week of not closing it (64-bit version/no Flash installed).
      - dr_zoidberg 10y ago
        200 tabs split in 12 windows, each window seem to carry a big overhead. Btw, I said "2 to 5 GB of free RAM", so that means I have more than 4 GB total... pay a bit more attention before being pedantic.

sp332 10y ago

FF doesn't use process per tab. It will use one process for chrome and one for all the content rendering for all tabs.

dkns 10y ago
It will in the future from what I understand. You can enable it right now in nightly.
- sp332 10y ago
  You can set a certain max number of processes. I don't think there's a way to explicitly do process-per-tab or process-per-domain.
  - johnp_ 10y ago
    There isn't. It is planned to add an algorithm for grouping tabs into processes and dynamically adding/removing content processes, but that's low priority right now, because the current focus lies on getting the single content process e10s ready for the release channel. More info in the e10s-multi bug and its dependencies: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=e10s-multi&hide_resolved=1 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=e10s-... (also a nice way to look for known issues that might affect you if you're interested in trying out e10s-multi)
ascagnel_ 10y ago
What benefits does that provide over 1 process per tab?
- RussianCow 10y ago
  Presumably, you don't have the overhead of running a separate process for each tab, which adds up quickly when you have 50+ tabs open.
- sp332 10y ago
  Edit: I misread your comment. As RussianCow mentioned, it's to keep resource usage under control. The main advantage is that browser chrome is still responsive during rendering. You can switch tabs, open menus, resize windows etc. Also, rendering is a little faster since you don't have to interrupt it constantly to keep the UI responsive. And if the content process dies, all your tabs are still "open" and you can reload the content.
  - RussianCow 10y ago
    I think the parent was asking about the advantage over Chrome's model of having one process per tab, not over the current single-process model.
    - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
      Shot in the dark here, but Chrome was developed back when it was common to have a single core CPU without any hyper-threading. An easy way to balance load is this scenario is just make a bunch of processes and have the OS do all the heavy lifting in regards to scheduling as everything has to share that one thread. You also get the benefit of bad processes dying without taking down the entire browser. At the time Chrome was coming around, browser stability was a larger issue than it is today. Now that everyone has a multi-core cpu, it makes more sense to not really worry too much about scheduling. The OS will just move stuff off a busy core and onto a less busy core dynamically. So why not just separate the UI front end from the rendering and call it a day? Why bother with so many processes when you have cpu cores to spare? The UI and renderer will run in their own cores when they get too cpu hungry. Also, if the renderer crashes, no biggie, the UI just re-renders everything.

dr_zoidberg 10y ago

When they first announced this model I ended up in the group that had this "feature" enabled. It was completely useless. I was almost about to change the browser for Chrome because I could barely broswe a few minutes before it crashed due to excessive CPU and memory usage. And then I got another update which reverted back to the old single process architecture. If it's as messed up as it was back then, it looks like I'll be having to switch broswer. I have a similar usage pattern as yours, with the added disadvantage that I group my tabs in windows, and every window seems to carry a big overhead. Btw, I'm not "memory constrained", I always have 2 to 5 GB free memory, but once the firefox process is over 1,5 GB then trouble begins, at 2 GB it's about to crash, and over that it can sometimes survive as large as 2,5 GB, but I've never seen it use more -- it always crashes before reaching 3 GB.

01Michael10 10y ago
What? You were going to switch browsers because you were having problems using a beta or nightly version? I have an idea... Use the release version!
- dr_zoidberg 10y ago
  Release has even worse memory issues, I had to go beta to get memory usage down and prevent crashes in the first place.
  - 01Michael10 10y ago
    Memory issues? I have have never had any memory issues with Firefox and it's been almost crash free now for the last six releases. It's 2016 now so maybe it's time to upgrade your box and it's 4 GB of RAM. EDIT: How is Firefox eating up to 3Gb of RAM on your machine? I never seen mine go over 1.5GB and that's been after a week of not closing it (64-bit version/no Flash installed).
    - dr_zoidberg 10y ago
      200 tabs split in 12 windows, each window seem to carry a big overhead. Btw, I said "2 to 5 GB of free RAM", so that means I have more than 4 GB total... pay a bit more attention before being pedantic.