3 ms·

If it's causing memory pressure on the system to the point of thrashing, sure. But is that the case or is able to react well to other RAM hungry processes on th

If it's causing memory pressure on the system to the point of thrashing, sure. But is that the case or is able to react well to other RAM hungry processes on the system? Not using additional spare memory if it gives the user a better experience seems like a no-no.

BuckRogers 8y ago
Worse is worse. There is no upside to using more memory. You don't know what a given system has for memory, Chrome needs to be as efficient as possible. Chrome is even worse than before with this change. Creating an ideal situation to make Chrome fit is disingenuous. Hopefully in time they find a way to retain safety without furthering to bloat their browser.
- badlucklottery 8y ago
  >There is no upside to using more memory. But there is an upside to better security. It'd be great if it was a free lunch but apparently it's not. >Chrome needs to be as efficient as possible. Chrome needs to make its users as happy as possible. Efficiency only matters when it starts affecting user happiness. >Creating an ideal situation to make Chrome fit is disingenuous. Do you know that it's an "ideal" situation rather than typical? I don't either but I also suspect Google wouldn't turn this on if it was going to negatively affect most users because they run the risk of losing market share to Safari/Firefox/Edge. I'm open to evidence to the contrary. >Hopefully in time they find a way to retain safety without furthering to bloat their browser. That's most likely going to be in the Intel/AMDs court.
- kentonv 8y ago
  > There is no upside to using more memory. Sure there is. Most complex systems can trade-off between memory usage and CPU. With more memory, the garbage collector doesn't have to work as hard, caches stay warm, etc. > You don't know what a given system has for memory, Chrome knows how much memory is available on your system, and it adapts its own memory usage based on this. V8 is designed to push the garbage collector harder when memory usage is tighter -- reducing usage at the cost of JavaScript running a little slower. I believe Chrome is also capable of freezing entire background tab states and saving them to disk, to be restored later when you go back to the tab. But there's no reason for it to do that if you have plenty of RAM to spare.
  - User23 8y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space–time_tradeoff https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space–time_tradeoff Google focuses very strongly on time, so I’m unsurprised that they are willing to trade space for time. Of course it’s possible Chrome is also outright wasting space, time, or both, but I have no idea if it is to a nontrivial extent.
  - xg15 8y ago
    But maybe I'd like to execute some other programs in addition to Chrome as well. So this might result in unneeded memory pressure in other programs.
  - BuckRogers 8y ago
    That's why you don't use garbage collection. Wasm or static pages only. V8 has been the worst thing to happen to the web, it made JS moderately performant. That's a terrible thing, now we have all this additional complexity thanks to Google's attempt to make the web an appstore.
- alliecat 8y ago
  >Chrome is even worse than before with this change. That's disingenuous. Chrome is 1) more secure, but 2) less accessible. These are separate metrics and you can't really roll them into one.

BuckRogers 8y ago

Worse is worse. There is no upside to using more memory. You don't know what a given system has for memory, Chrome needs to be as efficient as possible. Chrome is even worse than before with this change. Creating an ideal situation to make Chrome fit is disingenuous. Hopefully in time they find a way to retain safety without furthering to bloat their browser.

badlucklottery 8y ago
>There is no upside to using more memory. But there is an upside to better security. It'd be great if it was a free lunch but apparently it's not. >Chrome needs to be as efficient as possible. Chrome needs to make its users as happy as possible. Efficiency only matters when it starts affecting user happiness. >Creating an ideal situation to make Chrome fit is disingenuous. Do you know that it's an "ideal" situation rather than typical? I don't either but I also suspect Google wouldn't turn this on if it was going to negatively affect most users because they run the risk of losing market share to Safari/Firefox/Edge. I'm open to evidence to the contrary. >Hopefully in time they find a way to retain safety without furthering to bloat their browser. That's most likely going to be in the Intel/AMDs court.
kentonv 8y ago
> There is no upside to using more memory. Sure there is. Most complex systems can trade-off between memory usage and CPU. With more memory, the garbage collector doesn't have to work as hard, caches stay warm, etc. > You don't know what a given system has for memory, Chrome knows how much memory is available on your system, and it adapts its own memory usage based on this. V8 is designed to push the garbage collector harder when memory usage is tighter -- reducing usage at the cost of JavaScript running a little slower. I believe Chrome is also capable of freezing entire background tab states and saving them to disk, to be restored later when you go back to the tab. But there's no reason for it to do that if you have plenty of RAM to spare.
- User23 8y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space–time_tradeoff https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space–time_tradeoff Google focuses very strongly on time, so I’m unsurprised that they are willing to trade space for time. Of course it’s possible Chrome is also outright wasting space, time, or both, but I have no idea if it is to a nontrivial extent.
- xg15 8y ago
  But maybe I'd like to execute some other programs in addition to Chrome as well. So this might result in unneeded memory pressure in other programs.
- BuckRogers 8y ago
  That's why you don't use garbage collection. Wasm or static pages only. V8 has been the worst thing to happen to the web, it made JS moderately performant. That's a terrible thing, now we have all this additional complexity thanks to Google's attempt to make the web an appstore.
alliecat 8y ago
>Chrome is even worse than before with this change. That's disingenuous. Chrome is 1) more secure, but 2) less accessible. These are separate metrics and you can't really roll them into one.