I assume he's not a benchmark pro, but he did a decent job already. We can
nitpick his sampling methodology - but it won't change the result. He is
correct that many procs is far more memory consuming than single proc, and
we already knew this.
This is a tradeoff we made consciously and deliberately. When firefox
crashes, all tabs go down. When firefox memory is compromised (security),
all tabs are compromised. In chrome, we don't have those problems, but
instead use more RAM. Further, Chrome is also able to implement per-tab
prioritization, so that background tabs don't make foreground tabs go slow.
Firefox can't do that.
Lastly, lets bring the test back to reality. People don't visit 150 random
home pages. They may have 20-30 tabs open, but many are applications, with
cookies, javascript state and much more than just the "home page". When
apps are in use, the memory gap between chrome and FF shrinks a lot.
Mike
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Dan Kegel <d...@kegel.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Mike Belshe<mbel...@google.com> wrote:
> > First off - kudos to the author for posting the source and steps to
> > reproduce! Most don't do that!
> >
> > Second, the author is basically right. Since he's running on Vista, its
> a
> > bit hard to tell whether his stats included shared memory or not; using
> the
> > default memory statistic ("Memory (Private Working Set)") is actually a
> > pretty good measure to just sum. But he doesn't say which measurement he
> > used.
>
> Wait, why doesn't his program itself do the summing?
> (I don't see it in there.)
> Wouldn't that get rid of the ambiguity?
> How hard would it be to add that and repost?
> - Dan
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
