9 ms·

Completely disagree. We've seen too much complacency in recent years when it comes to memory usage. Developers think it's ok for their applications to bloat out

Completely disagree. We've seen too much complacency in recent years when it comes to memory usage. Developers think it's ok for their applications to bloat out and have a huge memory footprint. I'd rather applications were developed in such a way that they were more memory efficient. I've had a recent incident in which Chrome was consuming about 7GB of memory, just because I had about a hundred tabs open! It was really, really, insane. This reckless disregard for memory usage caused more problems in terms of performance, and it wasn't apparent what was happening until things started OOM'ing. (Swapping is really just as bad as an OOM - the computer's practically useless if it's trashing due to low memory.) Your ideal situation of having more memory used will, in many cases, lead to degraded performance.

asafh 14y ago
I agree with you, but 7GB for 100 tabs sounds likes something unusual happened. I usually have around 200-350 tabs open (Yes, I'm hoarding, I'm aware of it). I usually terminate their processes and respawn them when I need them (their state is not lost) but IIRC, when I don't I get around 3GB for 200 Tabs
- kintamanimatt 14y ago
  I've seen this many times, and it seems to depend on the complexity of the page being rendered. I did close and re-open things, much to the same result.
theorique 14y ago
just because I had about a hundred tabs open That is a lot of tabs, though.
- kintamanimatt 14y ago
  Not really, especially if you're doing a lot of research, or for whatever reason the page is particularly complex and it causes the process that tab is running under to consume a lot of memory.
  - DavidHogue 14y ago
    I end up with quite a few tabs open myself. I find if I bookmark a tab, add it to Pocket, or copy the URL into my notes that I'm far more likely to go back and actually read it. Before I would keep tabs open for weeks "just in case".
    - chenster 14y ago
      I can relate, I do the same to keep the tabs open so to read them later. Most of them end of not reading them weeks later. Never use Pocket. Presumably, it's similar to ReadItLater or Instapaper? Perhaps indeed that's better approach.
  - adventured 14y ago
    No, a hundred tabs is still far beyond a lot. If a hundred tabs is not really a lot, what would be? 250? 1,000?
    - kintamanimatt 14y ago
      Whatever the brightline test for "a lot" is, there's no compelling reason each tab should be consuming about 70MB. Under Chrome, each tab runs in its own process, which is certainly a contributing factor. I appreciate this is for stability and security, but it's not the best solution for the problem and has some serious drawbacks, i.e. horrible memory usage.
      - ibrahima 14y ago
        As I said in another reply to one of your comments, I don't think 70MB is a lot per tab. I'm fairly certain that if you run Firefox 2 for instance it'll use close to that amount for one tab.
      - kcbanner 14y ago
        The fact that it is its own process is a very small contributor to per-tab memory usage.
  - 14y ago
- halviti 14y ago
  I average over a hundred tabs regularly. Although once the favicons disappear, I usually open a new window, or group windows by subject matter. I've tried to alter my browsing habits over the years to ease the load on my computer, but I've just come to accept that I am just one of those people. This tool is either the best thing that's ever happened, or it's about to exacerbate my problem 10 fold.
  - hnriot 14y ago
    if you have a 100 tabs open, you're using it wrong.
    - bd_at_rivenhill 14y ago
      How do you suggest to handle the fact that there are many websites which break the "back" button these days? I've gotten to the point where I open a new tab practically every time I follow a link. Not to mention news sites where you need to open all of the interesting articles that you see before the page updates and they go away.
    - simonster 14y ago
      Well, if you have 100 tabs open, you might be using the wrong browser. Chrome is obviously not designed to work with that many tabs, either from a UI standpoint or, apparently, a memory use standpoint. However, I don't really see why there needs to be a strict limit on the number of tabs you can have open before your browser starts trashing all your memory. This is a problem that can be solved by designing your software to deal with that use scenario, either by pausing unused pages and serializing the resources to disk or by disposing of the unused pages entirely without removing the tabs. You'd want a pref for this, but it seems entirely reasonable to me.
      - hnriot 14y ago
        there isn't a strict limit, its just not a viable use case for current browsers. Maybe what we need is Chrome/FF to consider the very high tab count as a use case and handle it better, when you have so many tabs it's not easy to find the 1 in 100 that you're looking for, we would need a new find tool, possible the browser should build a client side tf/idf index and make the whole working set (workspace) searchable. You see what I mean? Until the browser changes to support this usecase, the usage will be klunky and fraught with problems.
- tripzilch 14y ago
  Probably but it's still 70MB per tab.
alexchamberlain 14y ago
Totally agree. My PC, which needs replacing, only has 2GB of memory, because that's what the motherboard supports.
- asafh 14y ago
  That doesn't make sense. Motherboard usually support a certain number of memory sticks. You probably have 2x1GB sticks, you can upgrade by replacing them rather than adding additional sticks. You probably do still have a 32bit system so you're still capped at 4GB of useful memory. I'd still upgrade my system if I were you.
  - kintamanimatt 14y ago
    In theory you'd be correct. But some motherboards, even when they're not operating under the constraints of 32 bit addressing, can't handle more than a certain amount of memory. In my case, my laptop's motherboard can only handle a maximum of 8GB. This is a fairly common problem: http://superuser.com/questions/308310/what-limits-a-motherboard-from-supporting-more-memory http://superuser.com/questions/308310/what-limits-a-motherbo...
  - kbolino 14y ago
    1. The memory controller will impose its own limit, which may be less than you'd think. 2. The form factor may also impose a limit. You won't find a DDR stick larger than 1GB, for example. Of course, if either of those were the cause of a 2GB limit, then you could make the case that the whole system should be upgraded, but that's a lot more expensive than a couple of sticks of RAM.
- bjustin 14y ago
  Sometimes motherboards work fine with more than the advertised supported maximum. It would be worth a shot if you can try with borrowed or return-able RAM.
k3n 14y ago
There's no way you could effectively work with 100 tabs open, and that is surely a smell for inefficiency. For any given task, 5 tabs is probably reaching the upper limit on what's actually _required_, with around 10 being the upper limit. Granted, you could have multiple tasks ongoing in parallel, but are you really working in parallel at that point? If not, save the tabs and return to them later. I really doubt you are visiting all 100 tabs on a regular basis so as to merit they stay open at all times. I've seen way too many people use their browser as a sort of todo app, by virtue of "I'll open a tab for this so I don't forget to do it later" -- hell, I do this too -- but that's not at all the intended usage of a browser, and so naturally, it sucks at it.
- kintamanimatt 14y ago
  What can I say? It worked for me. I was doing a lot of research and things I'd read would lead to more searches of tangential topics that I'd want to revisit in the coming hours. This method of working fit my mental model and I was flitting between tabs as necessary, not just opening them up with the hope that I'd read them sometime. Also, if I need to click on a whole bunch of links that I know I'm immediately going to evaluate, it's faster and easier to click on 50 links in one go than to click, evaluate, close, find my old position, click, evaluate ...! I'm someone that likes to batch tasks because I find it more efficient. Opening that many tabs isn't something I do every day. I've only got seven open right now, which is normal-ish, but sometimes I need it and I know I'll need it again soon. (On a side note, I can't really figure out why but I hate the term smell but it triggers a visceral reaction and wish it'd die a horrible death!)
  - tomkarlo 14y ago
    You don't open 100 apps on your computer and then complain about memory usage. Running 100 tabs at the same time, all of which may be running live JS processes, is about the same. It's a perfectly valid usage pattern but it's also going to eat a lot of memory. It's not like driving with your parking brake on, but it's like loading your car up with its maximum passenger capacity and then complaining that it's accelerating more slowly.
ibrahima 14y ago
I don't see how it's a developers' fault that you opened 100 tabs in Chrome. 70MB per tab is really not that much, I don't think browser memory usage has actually gone up by much compared to other applications. I think the fact that it was usable up to that point is a testament to its design, though I personally think Firefox handles large numbers of tabs better overall (UI wise).

asafh 14y ago

I agree with you, but 7GB for 100 tabs sounds likes something unusual happened. I usually have around 200-350 tabs open (Yes, I'm hoarding, I'm aware of it). I usually terminate their processes and respawn them when I need them (their state is not lost) but IIRC, when I don't I get around 3GB for 200 Tabs

kintamanimatt 14y ago
I've seen this many times, and it seems to depend on the complexity of the page being rendered. I did close and re-open things, much to the same result.

theorique 14y ago

just because I had about a hundred tabs open That is a lot of tabs, though.

kintamanimatt 14y ago
Not really, especially if you're doing a lot of research, or for whatever reason the page is particularly complex and it causes the process that tab is running under to consume a lot of memory.
- DavidHogue 14y ago
  I end up with quite a few tabs open myself. I find if I bookmark a tab, add it to Pocket, or copy the URL into my notes that I'm far more likely to go back and actually read it. Before I would keep tabs open for weeks "just in case".
  - chenster 14y ago
    I can relate, I do the same to keep the tabs open so to read them later. Most of them end of not reading them weeks later. Never use Pocket. Presumably, it's similar to ReadItLater or Instapaper? Perhaps indeed that's better approach.
- adventured 14y ago
  No, a hundred tabs is still far beyond a lot. If a hundred tabs is not really a lot, what would be? 250? 1,000?
  - kintamanimatt 14y ago
    Whatever the brightline test for "a lot" is, there's no compelling reason each tab should be consuming about 70MB. Under Chrome, each tab runs in its own process, which is certainly a contributing factor. I appreciate this is for stability and security, but it's not the best solution for the problem and has some serious drawbacks, i.e. horrible memory usage.
    - ibrahima 14y ago
      As I said in another reply to one of your comments, I don't think 70MB is a lot per tab. I'm fairly certain that if you run Firefox 2 for instance it'll use close to that amount for one tab.
    - kcbanner 14y ago
      The fact that it is its own process is a very small contributor to per-tab memory usage.
- 14y ago
halviti 14y ago
I average over a hundred tabs regularly. Although once the favicons disappear, I usually open a new window, or group windows by subject matter. I've tried to alter my browsing habits over the years to ease the load on my computer, but I've just come to accept that I am just one of those people. This tool is either the best thing that's ever happened, or it's about to exacerbate my problem 10 fold.
- hnriot 14y ago
  if you have a 100 tabs open, you're using it wrong.
  - bd_at_rivenhill 14y ago
    How do you suggest to handle the fact that there are many websites which break the "back" button these days? I've gotten to the point where I open a new tab practically every time I follow a link. Not to mention news sites where you need to open all of the interesting articles that you see before the page updates and they go away.
  - simonster 14y ago
    Well, if you have 100 tabs open, you might be using the wrong browser. Chrome is obviously not designed to work with that many tabs, either from a UI standpoint or, apparently, a memory use standpoint. However, I don't really see why there needs to be a strict limit on the number of tabs you can have open before your browser starts trashing all your memory. This is a problem that can be solved by designing your software to deal with that use scenario, either by pausing unused pages and serializing the resources to disk or by disposing of the unused pages entirely without removing the tabs. You'd want a pref for this, but it seems entirely reasonable to me.
    - hnriot 14y ago
      there isn't a strict limit, its just not a viable use case for current browsers. Maybe what we need is Chrome/FF to consider the very high tab count as a use case and handle it better, when you have so many tabs it's not easy to find the 1 in 100 that you're looking for, we would need a new find tool, possible the browser should build a client side tf/idf index and make the whole working set (workspace) searchable. You see what I mean? Until the browser changes to support this usecase, the usage will be klunky and fraught with problems.
tripzilch 14y ago
Probably but it's still 70MB per tab.

alexchamberlain 14y ago

Totally agree. My PC, which needs replacing, only has 2GB of memory, because that's what the motherboard supports.

asafh 14y ago
That doesn't make sense. Motherboard usually support a certain number of memory sticks. You probably have 2x1GB sticks, you can upgrade by replacing them rather than adding additional sticks. You probably do still have a 32bit system so you're still capped at 4GB of useful memory. I'd still upgrade my system if I were you.
- kintamanimatt 14y ago
  In theory you'd be correct. But some motherboards, even when they're not operating under the constraints of 32 bit addressing, can't handle more than a certain amount of memory. In my case, my laptop's motherboard can only handle a maximum of 8GB. This is a fairly common problem: http://superuser.com/questions/308310/what-limits-a-motherboard-from-supporting-more-memory http://superuser.com/questions/308310/what-limits-a-motherbo...
- kbolino 14y ago
  1. The memory controller will impose its own limit, which may be less than you'd think. 2. The form factor may also impose a limit. You won't find a DDR stick larger than 1GB, for example. Of course, if either of those were the cause of a 2GB limit, then you could make the case that the whole system should be upgraded, but that's a lot more expensive than a couple of sticks of RAM.
bjustin 14y ago
Sometimes motherboards work fine with more than the advertised supported maximum. It would be worth a shot if you can try with borrowed or return-able RAM.

k3n 14y ago

There's no way you could effectively work with 100 tabs open, and that is surely a smell for inefficiency. For any given task, 5 tabs is probably reaching the upper limit on what's actually _required_, with around 10 being the upper limit. Granted, you could have multiple tasks ongoing in parallel, but are you really working in parallel at that point? If not, save the tabs and return to them later. I really doubt you are visiting all 100 tabs on a regular basis so as to merit they stay open at all times. I've seen way too many people use their browser as a sort of todo app, by virtue of "I'll open a tab for this so I don't forget to do it later" -- hell, I do this too -- but that's not at all the intended usage of a browser, and so naturally, it sucks at it.

kintamanimatt 14y ago
What can I say? It worked for me. I was doing a lot of research and things I'd read would lead to more searches of tangential topics that I'd want to revisit in the coming hours. This method of working fit my mental model and I was flitting between tabs as necessary, not just opening them up with the hope that I'd read them sometime. Also, if I need to click on a whole bunch of links that I know I'm immediately going to evaluate, it's faster and easier to click on 50 links in one go than to click, evaluate, close, find my old position, click, evaluate ...! I'm someone that likes to batch tasks because I find it more efficient. Opening that many tabs isn't something I do every day. I've only got seven open right now, which is normal-ish, but sometimes I need it and I know I'll need it again soon. (On a side note, I can't really figure out why but I hate the term smell but it triggers a visceral reaction and wish it'd die a horrible death!)
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  You don't open 100 apps on your computer and then complain about memory usage. Running 100 tabs at the same time, all of which may be running live JS processes, is about the same. It's a perfectly valid usage pattern but it's also going to eat a lot of memory. It's not like driving with your parking brake on, but it's like loading your car up with its maximum passenger capacity and then complaining that it's accelerating more slowly.

ibrahima 14y ago

I don't see how it's a developers' fault that you opened 100 tabs in Chrome. 70MB per tab is really not that much, I don't think browser memory usage has actually gone up by much compared to other applications. I think the fact that it was usable up to that point is a testament to its design, though I personally think Firefox handles large numbers of tabs better overall (UI wise).