5 ms·

So you're blaming Chrome because your Ad Block Plus extension crippled and hosed it? Why don't you try running the same test with Ad Block plus disabled and sha

So you're blaming Chrome because your Ad Block Plus extension crippled and hosed it? Why don't you try running the same test with Ad Block plus disabled and share your results? That page renders in 112MB and scrolls blisteringly fast in Chrome 45 Dev. With Ad Block Plus installed it chokes it. People need to stop blaming Chrome and start looking at the havoc their extensions are creating. Whenever I hear a Chrome performance or memory story it invariably always ties back to their extensions. It's clear why Apple controls and limits modifications to their software. It's to prevent situations like these from erupting and giving their product a black eye because some inefficient extension is in over its head.

blinkingled 11y ago
Well, for one I don't have Adblock installed. For two, chrome extensions run in their own process which means the memory usage is reported separately for each tab and extension. So the hosing is completely Chrome's fault - 32-bit version just crashes with the tab in question taking maximum memory.
- bitmapbrother 11y ago
  Ok, let's recap: 1) Chrome with no ad blocking extension renders the page in about 112MB with fast scrolling. 2) Chrome with ad blocking extension installed inflates memory. Seems pretty clear to me where the problem lies. Also, the issue isn't about these extensions running in their own process as this is simply to prevent a bad extension from taking down the tab. It's about what these extensions are doing to the tab process.
  - detaro 11y ago
    read the comment again, especially the first sentence.
    - bitmapbrother 11y ago
      You must have missed the part where he said he's running uBlock. Last time I checked, it was still an ad blocking extension.
      - blinkingled 11y ago
        You're missing the point. Chrome with uBlock uses double the memory compared to FF current version with uBlock.
        bitmapbrother 11y ago
        My point has always been that uBlock is doing something to the Chrome tab process renderer that's causing it to consume a lot of memory. The very fact that the example page renders in only 112MB compared to >800MB with an ad blocker installed is proof of this. In the case of Chrome, with an ad blocker installed, they seem to be doing something to the DOM that causes the memory allocated for that renderer to balloon above 1GB. But, the very fact that these ad blockers cause this extreme spike in memory is alarming. To the layman you would think the removal of ads from the DOM would reduce the amount of RAM consumed. But, just the opposite occurs. Why is this? What are these ad blockers doing exactly and why are they causing these rendering engines to spike in memory usage? But, one thing is clear, whatever they're doing it's the fault of the ad blocker and not Chrome.
        blinkingled 11y ago
        Again. Please re-read the original article. Firefox is fixing their inefficient memory management w.r.t. CSS with a later version. That fixed version reduces the memory usage to 450Mb with the same Adblock code. So it wasn't exactly Adblock's fault - it was Mozilla's code that was grossly inefficient and they owned it and fixed it. Same way, as it stands today, with uBlock FF 38.x loads that site in about 750Mb whereas Chrome with uBlock uses 1.6GB. Unless you happen to know that uBlock is doing something crazy on Chrome but not on FF, and that Chrome code is 100% without inefficiencies - don't state it like a fact that it is uBlock that is the issue. uBlock is manipulating the DOM - Chrome is using memory for those elements, it is entirely up to them to optimize it if uBlock can work fine with less memory on Firefox while essentially doing the same thing. Chrome isn't exactly known for being thrifty on memory and battery btw.

blinkingled 11y ago

Well, for one I don't have Adblock installed. For two, chrome extensions run in their own process which means the memory usage is reported separately for each tab and extension. So the hosing is completely Chrome's fault - 32-bit version just crashes with the tab in question taking maximum memory.

bitmapbrother 11y ago
Ok, let's recap: 1) Chrome with no ad blocking extension renders the page in about 112MB with fast scrolling. 2) Chrome with ad blocking extension installed inflates memory. Seems pretty clear to me where the problem lies. Also, the issue isn't about these extensions running in their own process as this is simply to prevent a bad extension from taking down the tab. It's about what these extensions are doing to the tab process.
- detaro 11y ago
  read the comment again, especially the first sentence.
  - bitmapbrother 11y ago
    You must have missed the part where he said he's running uBlock. Last time I checked, it was still an ad blocking extension.
    - blinkingled 11y ago
      You're missing the point. Chrome with uBlock uses double the memory compared to FF current version with uBlock.
      - bitmapbrother 11y ago
        My point has always been that uBlock is doing something to the Chrome tab process renderer that's causing it to consume a lot of memory. The very fact that the example page renders in only 112MB compared to >800MB with an ad blocker installed is proof of this. In the case of Chrome, with an ad blocker installed, they seem to be doing something to the DOM that causes the memory allocated for that renderer to balloon above 1GB. But, the very fact that these ad blockers cause this extreme spike in memory is alarming. To the layman you would think the removal of ads from the DOM would reduce the amount of RAM consumed. But, just the opposite occurs. Why is this? What are these ad blockers doing exactly and why are they causing these rendering engines to spike in memory usage? But, one thing is clear, whatever they're doing it's the fault of the ad blocker and not Chrome.
        blinkingled 11y ago
        Again. Please re-read the original article. Firefox is fixing their inefficient memory management w.r.t. CSS with a later version. That fixed version reduces the memory usage to 450Mb with the same Adblock code. So it wasn't exactly Adblock's fault - it was Mozilla's code that was grossly inefficient and they owned it and fixed it. Same way, as it stands today, with uBlock FF 38.x loads that site in about 750Mb whereas Chrome with uBlock uses 1.6GB. Unless you happen to know that uBlock is doing something crazy on Chrome but not on FF, and that Chrome code is 100% without inefficiencies - don't state it like a fact that it is uBlock that is the issue. uBlock is manipulating the DOM - Chrome is using memory for those elements, it is entirely up to them to optimize it if uBlock can work fine with less memory on Firefox while essentially doing the same thing. Chrome isn't exactly known for being thrifty on memory and battery btw.