I thought it was designed to do that, but I noticed that its CPU load is much higher than Galeon's (for example), even when it has one-tenth the number of tabs. I looked at Chrome's Task Manager, and it showed a number of background tabs with CPU loads greater than 10%.
On Sep 26, 1:02 am, PhistucK <[email protected]> wrote: > Chrome does that, too (prioritizing foreground tabs\browser windows). > ☆PhistucK > > On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 01:04, Fx <[email protected]> wrote: > > > One thing to remember though is that Chrome's architecture (tabs or > > groups of tabs as independent processes) is such that it will probably > > consume more memory and CPU load than a 'traditional' browser, one > > that treats the entire browser as one process, because of the greater > > overhead of running multiple processes. > > > The trade-off, of course, is better stability with the mulitiple > > processes architecture, at least in theory. > > > I've switched back to Galeon temporarily, due to the instability of > > the most recent revision of Chrome (and the download problems of the > > previous revision), and have been struck by its low CPU load > > (typically less than 15%) and memory needs (~500MB for about 4x the > > number of tabs for which Chrome needed ~850MB RAM). It's not > > completely stable -- but it seems better than Chrome right now. That > > could change in the next revision of Chrome. > > > One advantage of the single-process architecture MAY be the ability to > > recognize which tabs are in the background, and giving them low > > priority with respect to resources. In other words, the scripts on > > tabs I'm not looking at currently probably don't need to be running > > full-bore and consuming lots of CPU cycles -- a few % of CPU load > > should be sufficient. I don't know whether Chrome recognizes this and > > scales back the resources provided to the background tab processes the > > way Galeon seems to do. > > > In any event, Galeon has the edge over Chrome in terms of resource > > footprint right now, and may be more appropriate for your system if it > > has limited CPU horsepower and/or RAM. > > > Fx > > > On Sep 18, 1:15 pm, Fx <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm not sure about flags -- though of course, it'd probably be better > > > if you don't enable plugins and extensions -- but I use some of the > > > "zap" bookmarklets I found to reduce the CPU load on certain webpages > > > with a lot of extraneous Javascript. Doing so took my load down from > > > nearly 100% down to under 50%. > > > > The bookmarklets can be found here: > >https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html > > > > On Sep 16, 10:20 am, Luying <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Anybody know which combination of flags I should switch on or off to > > > > minize ram and cpu usage on linux? > > > > > Luying --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Discussion mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
