7 ms·

Don't most browsers run one process per page/tab nowadays?

by endianswap 8y ago

greglindahl 8y ago
Chrome does, Firefox does not (I've got 5 processes for a billion tabs.)
- valarauca1 8y ago
  Firefox process per tab is behind a feature flag as it’s in testing still
  - timvisee 8y ago
    I don't think the plan is to ever enable this in the comming few years. The current approach with a few tabs is much more memory efficient, which is why they've chosen it.
    - ams6110 8y ago
      Indeed. I cannot open Google Drive in chrome on my OpenBSD box without crashing the tab from exhausting memory, but Firefox handles it no problem.
    - mtgx 8y ago
      And it's a mistake. Just recently I noticed that when Firefox loads multiple tabs of the same wordpress site, it starts hanging not unlike Firefox always used to hang. That's likely because it groups all of those same site pages under one process. I've never experienced that with Chrome. This is why I hope Firefox eventually (ASAP) switches to one process per tab, too. I can handle the browser using an extra GB of RAM. I can't handle it hanging on me and frustrating me. Instead of pushing for 30-40% lower memory than Chrome, I say they should push for 10% lower memory with the same sanboxed process per tab model.
      - greglindahl 8y ago
        So, you're saying because you think you've discovered one case where there might be a problem, Firefox should completely change their architecture? And you're saying this in a discussion which frequently mentions how extremely varied workloads are?
        abugheratwork 8y ago
        No, man. He said Firefox should change their architecture, and he gave some kind of example. After the way you seized on the word "typical", I kind of expected you to take words at face value. I didn't see any text to the effect that he thinks his say so is good enough. Also, you're the one frequently mentioning how varied workloads are, and you don't constitute the discussion. I'm going to go drink some cocoa to wash down this hook, line, and sinker I swallowed with your flame bait.
        greglindahl 8y ago
        Not intended as flame bait, sorry if that's how it comes across to you. It just so happens that people complaining about Firefox doing it wrong is a pretty common thing in Firefox threads on HN. And they usually have an example where it's really unclear if it's a problem for more than them or not. But, usually, they have a lot of advice about what the Firefox team should do. Whereas the Firefox team has telemetry data from most of their users.
      - Amezarak 8y ago
        Chrome does not use one process per tab. In fact, it does something very similar to what you say Firefox does. http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/process-models http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/process-... FWIW I do not have the problem you describe and I don't want Firefox wasting any more of my scarce memory, or for that matter, CPU.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        > very similar Not really. Chrome uses a lot of processes for isolation. Firefox uses about four so it can take advantage of multiple cores.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    The only thing I could find is a set of 'browser.tabs.remote.*' options, that are all enabled by default in FF 60. That seems to indicate it is enabled, since the old option was 'browser.tabs.remote'? Or has it changed to something else now?
- ComputerGuru 8y ago
  No, Chrome used to but now uses a heuristic to determine whether new tabs should be launched in their own process or share an existing process, as a memory usage mitigation strategy. I believe tabs from the same origin have a preference of sharing processes.

Don't most browsers run one process per page/tab nowadays?

greglindahl 8y ago

Chrome does, Firefox does not (I've got 5 processes for a billion tabs.)

valarauca1 8y ago
Firefox process per tab is behind a feature flag as it’s in testing still
- timvisee 8y ago
  I don't think the plan is to ever enable this in the comming few years. The current approach with a few tabs is much more memory efficient, which is why they've chosen it.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    Indeed. I cannot open Google Drive in chrome on my OpenBSD box without crashing the tab from exhausting memory, but Firefox handles it no problem.
  - mtgx 8y ago
    And it's a mistake. Just recently I noticed that when Firefox loads multiple tabs of the same wordpress site, it starts hanging not unlike Firefox always used to hang. That's likely because it groups all of those same site pages under one process. I've never experienced that with Chrome. This is why I hope Firefox eventually (ASAP) switches to one process per tab, too. I can handle the browser using an extra GB of RAM. I can't handle it hanging on me and frustrating me. Instead of pushing for 30-40% lower memory than Chrome, I say they should push for 10% lower memory with the same sanboxed process per tab model.
    - greglindahl 8y ago
      So, you're saying because you think you've discovered one case where there might be a problem, Firefox should completely change their architecture? And you're saying this in a discussion which frequently mentions how extremely varied workloads are?
      - abugheratwork 8y ago
        No, man. He said Firefox should change their architecture, and he gave some kind of example. After the way you seized on the word "typical", I kind of expected you to take words at face value. I didn't see any text to the effect that he thinks his say so is good enough. Also, you're the one frequently mentioning how varied workloads are, and you don't constitute the discussion. I'm going to go drink some cocoa to wash down this hook, line, and sinker I swallowed with your flame bait.
        greglindahl 8y ago
        Not intended as flame bait, sorry if that's how it comes across to you. It just so happens that people complaining about Firefox doing it wrong is a pretty common thing in Firefox threads on HN. And they usually have an example where it's really unclear if it's a problem for more than them or not. But, usually, they have a lot of advice about what the Firefox team should do. Whereas the Firefox team has telemetry data from most of their users.
    - Amezarak 8y ago
      Chrome does not use one process per tab. In fact, it does something very similar to what you say Firefox does. http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/process-models http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/process-... FWIW I do not have the problem you describe and I don't want Firefox wasting any more of my scarce memory, or for that matter, CPU.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        > very similar Not really. Chrome uses a lot of processes for isolation. Firefox uses about four so it can take advantage of multiple cores.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  The only thing I could find is a set of 'browser.tabs.remote.*' options, that are all enabled by default in FF 60. That seems to indicate it is enabled, since the old option was 'browser.tabs.remote'? Or has it changed to something else now?
ComputerGuru 8y ago
No, Chrome used to but now uses a heuristic to determine whether new tabs should be launched in their own process or share an existing process, as a memory usage mitigation strategy. I believe tabs from the same origin have a preference of sharing processes.