Linked by David Adams on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 16:50 UTC, submitted by _xmv
Mozilla & Gecko clones Mozilla Firefox has been listening to recent memory complains, and as a side effect tested the browser's scalability to the extreme with memshrink's improvements. The results are shocking: For 150 tabs open using the test script, Firefox nightly takes 6 min 14 on the test system, uses 2GB and stays responsive. For the same test, Chrome takes 28 min 55 and is unusable during loading. An optimized version of the script has been made for Chrome as an attempt to work-around Chrome's limitations and got an improved loading time of 27 min 58, while using 5GB of memory.
Thread beginning with comment 483392
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Praxis
by _xmv on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Praxis"
Member since:

Firefox 4 and beyond has changed their memory management from 3.5/3.6 and it started to use a lot of memory again, hence the big push they're doing now.

This push is also more important than when they analyzed memory issues and fixed them in FF 3.5/3.6 so they're going as deep as they can with it.

It seems it does pay off with more than just "memory savings" and I'm glad.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Praxis
by Lennie on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 23:21 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Praxis"
Lennie Member since:

I'm kind of sad that Firefox 4 got released like that, but they just had to release it. The FF4 release was just taking to much time.

I don't think there were that many user-visible changes in FF5. Which made people question the reason for the release. I think they maybe could have waited, maybe called it 4.1 release or something.

Also they want Firefox Mobile to work, obviously those devices have a lot less memory to work with. That could really help on the desktop too.

I do think it is the wrong test though.

Having a test where he would open 150 tabs, wait 10 minutes, close many, open some more wait 10 minutes and so on would be much better.

I'm on the daily builds (thus FF8) and I think having FF open all day long works better now. Also the about:memory page now shows a lot more detail.

Anyway I'm glad they are working on it now. I think the problem was, they couldn't reproduce the problems very well.

They also have a reduce-UI-latency project, can't remember the name, which I think is maybe even more important.

Atleast they are now gathering realworld numbers from real users:

Hopefully that gets them the information they need.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Praxis
by zima on Tue 9th Aug 2011 15:07 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Praxis"
zima Member since:

I think the problem was, they couldn't reproduce the problems very well.

Which would be... charming, in a way; them not using their baby in a thorough way (alternatively, knowing full well what is the "right" way to use it)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by Praxis
by Delgarde on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 23:22 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Praxis"
Delgarde Member since:

what I'm hearing is that FF4/5 don't *leak* memory as much as their predecessors - if you open and close tabs, memory use goes up and down as you'd expect. But they do seem to be using a lot more of it than FF3 - it might not be leaking but it's still a problem on machines that don't have much to spare (like my little netbook). Sounds like that's what they're addressing at the moment...

Reply Parent Score: 2