In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ian Davey wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Well I'd hope so, given how much memory it hogs. Again, over 22MB *TO
>> >DISPLAY A BLANK PAGE*.
>>
>> On what platform,
>
>Why2K.
>
>> on start up it's 14MB to display a blank page here (on
>> WinNT at work).
>
>That's not what I'm seeing. I'll try yet again today, maybe the RAM
>Fairy visited Mozilla overnight.
How much memory do you have? I noticed something interesting yesterday. I went
from having 64MB, where Mozilla starts at about 14MB, to 128MB and it now
starts at around 20MB. I remember hearing that Mozilla has logic to manage
it's memory depending on how much free memory there is, so it may well be
being more "greedy" when there is a glut of free memory. The process size
never used to grow to more than what I had (64MB) so that makes sense. Some
people with a lot of memory (256MB) have reported it growing quite large,
bigger than my machine would even have been able to hold in memory, whereas I
was able to run it quite happily all day without a crash. And without the
memory exceeding about 29MB. I assume on machines with larger memory it's
keeping more uncompressed images (even small jpeg's take up a lot of memory
when uncompressed for display) etc. cached in memory.
Linux does something similar, using a lot of the free memory to cache disk
accesses, but returning it to the system when it is needed. Rather than
leaving wasted memory it could be making use of.
>> Not sure of the numbers at home on Linux. This is without the
>> Java plugin though which seems to account for quite a bit of bloat.
>>
>As far as I know, I don't have any Java plugin. I'm installing just
>whatever comes in the ~8MB nightly, and I'm sure Java just by itself
>wouldn't fit in that 8MB.
Yes, that's what I use.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
