Re: Surprised ...

[Arno Hautala]

What was the site? It seems to me that Gmail is always the biggest culprit.

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Ashley Aitken  wrote:
>
> I was surprised when I first noticed an application bundle (I think it was a 
> version of Adobe Acrobat Pro) took up a gigabyte of disk space, but 
> rationalised it as a lot of extra graphics, fonts, and other resources.
>
> But I don't know what to make of a tab in Google Chrome having very nearly 
> one gigabyte of memory (real memory as reported by Google Chrome's Task 
> Manager and Activity Monitor) and over 100% CPU.
>
> One tab.
>
> Cheers,
> Ashley.
>
> PS Ending the task in Google Task Manager and reloading brought it back down 
> a a more "reasonable" 150MB.  I guess it must have been a leaky page / 
> component.
>
> Latest version of Chrome running on last version of Mountain Lion on a 2010 
> MBP with 8GB of RAM.
>
>
> --
> Ashley Aitken
> Perth, Western Australia
> mrhatken at mac dot com
> Social (Facebook, Twitter, Skype etc.): MrHatken
> Professional (LinkedIn, Twitter, Skype etc.): AshleyAitken
>
> Dropbox stores your files so you can access from any computer.  Get it (and 
> extra space for both of us) for free!  Go to http://db.tt/geb9RWb
>
>
>
>
> ___
> MacOSX-talk mailing list
> MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk



-- 
arno  s  hautala/-|   a...@alum.wpi.edu

pgp b2c9d448
___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[LuKreme]

On 17 Nov 2013, at 08:52 , Ashley Aitken  wrote:

> But I don't know what to make of a tab in Google Chrome having very nearly 
> one gigabyte of memory (real memory as reported by Google Chrome's Task 
> Manager and Activity Monitor) and over 100% CPU.

I sued to keep Chrome around just because sometimes I needed to look at some 
horrible Flash page. Since 10.9 and Apple giving us complete control over 
Flash, I’m no longer using Chrome at all.

I know some people like it, but I never have (well, not since its version 
numbers were in single digits) and have always found it to be flakey.

Of course, I have much the same opinion of Firefox, though I would add bloated 
stinking pile of mess.

-- 
SUSURRATION: It's a hushed noise. But it hints of plots and secrets and
people turning to one another in surprise. It's the noise, in fact, made
just after the sword is withdrawn from the stone and just before the
cheering starts.

___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[Ashley Aitken]

On 19/11/2013, at 11:42 PM, Ashley Aitken  wrote:

> 
> Facebook :-(
> 
> Cheers,
> Ashley.
> 
> On 18/11/2013, at 2:50 AM, Arno Hautala  wrote:
> 
>> What was the site? It seems to me that Gmail is always the biggest culprit.
>> 
>> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Ashley Aitken  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I was surprised when I first noticed an application bundle (I think it was 
>>> a version of Adobe Acrobat Pro) took up a gigabyte of disk space, but 
>>> rationalised it as a lot of extra graphics, fonts, and other resources.
>>> 
>>> But I don't know what to make of a tab in Google Chrome having very nearly 
>>> one gigabyte of memory (real memory as reported by Google Chrome's Task 
>>> Manager and Activity Monitor) and over 100% CPU.
>>> 
>>> One tab.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ashley.
>>> 
>>> PS Ending the task in Google Task Manager and reloading brought it back 
>>> down a a more "reasonable" 150MB.  I guess it must have been a leaky page / 
>>> component.
>>> 
>>> Latest version of Chrome running on last version of Mountain Lion on a 2010 
>>> MBP with 8GB of RAM.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Ashley Aitken
>>> Perth, Western Australia
>>> mrhatken at mac dot com
>>> Social (Facebook, Twitter, Skype etc.): MrHatken
>>> Professional (LinkedIn, Twitter, Skype etc.): AshleyAitken
>>> 
>>> Dropbox stores your files so you can access from any computer.  Get it (and 
>>> extra space for both of us) for free!  Go to http://db.tt/geb9RWb
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> MacOSX-talk mailing list
>>> MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
>>> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> arno  s  hautala/-|   a...@alum.wpi.edu
>> 
>> pgp b2c9d448
> 
> --
> Ashley Aitken
> Perth, Western Australia
> mrhatken at mac dot com
> Social (Facebook, Twitter, Skype etc.): MrHatken 
> Professional (LinkedIn, Twitter, Skype etc.): AshleyAitken
> 
> Dropbox stores your files so you can access from any computer.  Get it (and 
> extra space for both of us) for free!  Go to http://db.tt/geb9RWb
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Ashley Aitken
Perth, Western Australia (GMT + 8hrs!)
Social (Facebook, Twitter, Skype etc.): MrHatken 
Professional (LinkedIn, Twitter, Skype etc.): AshleyAitken




___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[Ashley Aitken]

I've been switching browsers every six months or so for the last couple of 
years but recently have stuck with Chrome because it seems more nimble, has a 
great print dialog (save to PDF as a printer), and the Task Manager (how else 
could one see which tab was using all the resources).  

I really miss the multi-session facility provided by a plugin to Firefox 
though.  Chrome has multiple users but I can't find a way for all users to 
share the same bookmarks, plugins etc. I really only need multiple sessions to 
allow multiple logins to services, not for complete user separation.  

Chrome is a bit more flakey and doesn't have a 64 bit version - I can't believe 
how long it is taking them to produce this - so Java applets are severely 
limited within Chrome.  Chrome does seem to provide the best experience and 
compatibility with Google apps (funny that, although it wasn't always the case).

Both Firefox and Chrome still bring my machine to its knees regularly but 
Chrome somewhat less frequently.  I think the resource management 
(sleep/suspend tabs) features of the new Safari are fantastic but until I can 
find a multi-session plugin I can't go back. 

Cheers,
Ashley.


On 18/11/2013, at 9:11 AM, LuKreme  wrote:

> 
> On 17 Nov 2013, at 08:52 , Ashley Aitken  wrote:
> 
>> But I don't know what to make of a tab in Google Chrome having very nearly 
>> one gigabyte of memory (real memory as reported by Google Chrome's Task 
>> Manager and Activity Monitor) and over 100% CPU.
> 
> I sued to keep Chrome around just because sometimes I needed to look at some 
> horrible Flash page. Since 10.9 and Apple giving us complete control over 
> Flash, I’m no longer using Chrome at all.
> 
> I know some people like it, but I never have (well, not since its version 
> numbers were in single digits) and have always found it to be flakey.
> 
> Of course, I have much the same opinion of Firefox, though I would add 
> bloated stinking pile of mess.
> 
> -- 
> SUSURRATION: It's a hushed noise. But it hints of plots and secrets and
> people turning to one another in surprise. It's the noise, in fact, made
> just after the sword is withdrawn from the stone and just before the
> cheering starts.
> 
> ___
> MacOSX-talk mailing list
> MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

--
Ashley Aitken
Perth, Western Australia
mrhatken at mac dot com
Social (Facebook, Twitter, Skype etc.): MrHatken 
Professional (LinkedIn, Twitter, Skype etc.): AshleyAitken

Dropbox stores your files so you can access from any computer.  Get it (and 
extra space for both of us) for free!  Go to http://db.tt/geb9RWb




___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[Arno Hautala]

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Ashley Aitken  wrote:
>
> Facebook :-(

I think that translates to "Flash". Or, if that would be entirely
covered by the plugin process, they likely keep a lot of connections
open and then re-render a lot in order to update your timeline / chats
/ etc.

When my wife and I shared a computer I noticed this behavior as well.
The first thing I'd do when she'd been using the computer was to kill
the top Chrome process (inevitably Facebook) and the Flash plugin.
Resources were instantly more plentiful.

-- 
arno  s  hautala/-|   a...@alum.wpi.edu

pgp b2c9d448
___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[LuKreme]

On 19 Nov 2013, at 08:52 , Ashley Aitken  wrote:
>  has a great print dialog (save to PDF as a printer)

Well, every app in OS X (except, as I recall,t he Adode apps that work very 
hard to break the OS X print options) can print to a PDF.

I use this all the time since I really never ever print to paper. (We have a 
brother MF which I mostly use for scanning and my wife uses for printing deems 
and deems of pointless paper)

-- 
Vernon: Now this is the thought that wakes me up in the middle of the
night. That when I get older, these kids are going to take care of me
Carl: I wouldn't count on it.

___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[LuKreme]

On 19 Nov 2013, at 09:30 , Arno Hautala  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Ashley Aitken  wrote:
>> 
>> Facebook :-(
> 
> I think that translates to "Flash". 

The only reason I kept Chrome was to use it on rare occasions for Flash. Now 
that Safari gives me complete control over Flash (much much better than Chrome) 
I can't see a reason to keep Chrome. Unless I want to play Angry birds on my 
computer for some reason, which so far I never want to do, despite playing in 
obsessively on my iPad.

-- 
Come on. Somewhere at the edge of the bell curve is the girl for me.

___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[Arno Hautala]

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:47 PM, LuKreme  wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2013, at 08:52 , Ashley Aitken  wrote:
>>  has a great print dialog (save to PDF as a printer)
>
> Well, every app in OS X (except, as I recall,t he Adode apps that work very 
> hard to break the OS X print options) can print to a PDF.

I haven't checked, but I presume that the PDF printer is a virtual
printer that can be set as the default printing target. There's
CUPS-PDF that can do this system wide. Unless "save to PDF as a
printer" really does just mean manually save a PDF.

-- 
arno  s  hautala/-|   a...@alum.wpi.edu

pgp b2c9d448
___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[Ashley Aitken]

On 20/11/2013, at 12:30 AM, Arno Hautala  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Ashley Aitken  wrote:
>> 
>> Facebook :-(
> 
> I think that translates to "Flash". Or, if that would be entirely
> covered by the plugin process, they likely keep a lot of connections
> open and then re-render a lot in order to update your timeline / chats
> / etc.

Yes, I think you are right.  Perhaps even the Adblock (Plus?) plugin.  However, 
I thought plugins ran in their own separate processes (and would display 
separately in the Chrome Task Manager). 

The Task Manager said this was the Facebook tab.

> When my wife and I shared a computer I noticed this behavior as well.
> The first thing I'd do when she'd been using the computer was to kill
> the top Chrome process (inevitably Facebook) and the Flash plugin.
> Resources were instantly more plentiful.

If I reload the Facebook tab/process then it (often) fixed things as well.  I 
guess I will have to experiment so more to find out what's happening.  

Thanks for your post.

Cheers,
Ashley.

--
Ashley Aitken
Perth, Western Australia
mrhatken at mac dot com
Social (Facebook, Twitter, Skype etc.): MrHatken 
Professional (LinkedIn, Twitter, Skype etc.): AshleyAitken

Dropbox stores your files so you can access from any computer.  Get it (and 
extra space for both of us) for free!  Go to http://db.tt/geb9RWb




___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[LuKreme]

On 21 Nov 2013, at 12:26 , steve harley  wrote:

> Safari claiming 11GB of real memory

That seems excessive.

> and 143GB of VM!

That’s completely irrelevant.

My Safari is using about 1GB of real memory and has been up since Monday.

-- 
'You know what the greatest tragedy is in the whole world?' said Ginger,
not paying him the least attention. 'It's all the people who never find
out what it is they really want to do or what it is they're really good
at. It's all the sons who become blacksmiths because their fathers were
blacksmiths. It's all the people who could be really fantastic flute
players who grow old and die without ever seeing a musical instrument,
so they become bad ploughmen instead. It's all the people with talents
who never even find out. Maybe they are never born in a time when it is
possible to find out.'

___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[Scot Hacker]

On Nov 21, 2013, at 11:26 AM, steve harley  wrote:

> i seem to be locked in a lifelong battle with web browsers and memory; Safari 
> is worse, and harder to manage; leave 50 tabs open in it for a few days and 
> it will use a huge amount of swap; i recently saw Safari claiming 11GB of 
> real memory and 143GB of VM!

I wouldn't expect any browser now or in the future to be performant with that 
many tabs open. It also sounds like a real usability hassle. I don't let myself 
keep  more than ~8 open, regardless of browser -  to conserve both memory and 
sanity. 

./s



--
>>> Birdhouse Hosting <<<
Custom web and mail hosting services
http://hosting.birdhouse.org

d(-_-)b





___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[steve harley]

on 2013-11-17 8:52 Ashley Aitken wrote

But I don't know what to make of a tab in Google Chrome having very nearly one 
gigabyte of memory (real memory as reported by Google Chrome's Task Manager and 
Activity Monitor) and over 100% CPU.


i seem to be locked in a lifelong battle with web browsers and memory; Safari 
is worse, and harder to manage; leave 50 tabs open in it for a few days and it 
will use a huge amount of swap; i recently saw Safari claiming 11GB of real 
memory and 143GB of VM!


so i keep Chrome as the resting place for various sites where i might use a lot 
of tabs, and for certain plug-ins and Flash (Flash is not installed on my 
machine, i only use Chrome's sandboxed version); i've seen Chrome tabs claiming 
1GB once or twice; i usually attribute them to memory leaks in active 
JavaScript pages; but even with dozens of tabs, Chrome does not impinge on the 
system as a whole the way Safari often does


(i am using OS X 10.7)



___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[steve harley]

on 2013-11-21 14:16 Scot Hacker wrote

I wouldn't expect any browser now or in the future to be performant with that 
many tabs open.


why not?

anyhow, the fact is that Safari performs fine until it stews for a few days; i 
have often have 80 or more tabs, and my observation is that the more tabs, the 
fewer days before Safari sucks the life out of everything and demands a 
relaunch; i would relaunch more often but i have abysmally slow DSL, so 
reloading lots of tabs is glitchy


Chrome does not have anything like Safari's creeping memory consumption 
problems; i can keep a few dozen tabs open in Chrome session for weeks while 
i'll have had to relaunch Safari several times; now and then a single tab runs 
away with the CPU, but the Task Manager makes that easy to handle




It also sounds like a real usability hassle. I don't let myself keep  more than 
~8 open, regardless of browser -  to conserve both memory and sanity.


8 would really cramp my style, but i don't presume my sanity and yours are 
equivalent; browser tabs are part of my filing system



___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[Kevin Callahan]

> On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:48 AM, LuKreme  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 19 Nov 2013, at 09:30 , Arno Hautala  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Ashley Aitken  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Facebook :-(
>> 
>> I think that translates to "Flash".
> 
> The only reason I kept Chrome was to use it on rare occasions for Flash. Now 
> that Safari gives me complete control over Flash (much much better than 
> Chrome) I can't see a reason to keep Chrome. Unless I want to play Angry 
> birds on my computer for some reason, which so far I never want to do, 
> despite playing in obsessively on my iPad.

And given Google circumvented user Safari privacy settings, who knows what data 
mining and tracking features they've built into Chrome (and other Google 
software and services) ?

> 
> -- 
> Come on. Somewhere at the edge of the bell curve is the girl for me.
> 
> ___
> MacOSX-talk mailing list
> MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[steve harley]

on 2013-11-21 15:41 LuKreme wrote


On 21 Nov 2013, at 12:26 , steve harley  wrote:


Safari claiming 11GB of real memory


That seems excessive.


indeed, but it is just taking what it can; it would probably be lower if the 
machine didn't have 16GB RAM, or higher if there weren't other apps competing 
for RAM; in other words, in itself real memory is not a full measure of memory 
status of an app




and 143GB of VM!


That’s completely irrelevant.


first note that this was VPRVT, not VSIZE

knowing that VM is a matter of mapping address space, some of which is never 
used and/or never transferred between RAM and disk, i still have a hard time 
imagining what would need to be mapped to reach that figure, and it correlated 
strongly with big performance problems


in the above case i didn't capture swap usage, but another time i recorded what 
may be a different syndrome — 8GB of real and 19GB of VPRVT for Safari Web 
Content (aka WebProcess in top); in this case, with no other "giant" processes, 
i had 30GB of swap in use; the implication is that a substantial portion of 
VPRVT represented data moved at least once between RAM and disk; in both cases 
system response was terrible due to swapping, and quitting and relaunching 
Safari with the same tabs brought performance back to normal for at least a 
couple of days


___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[list boy]

Can I get a swap file question in here?

First some data:

MBA 4,2 with a 240gb SSD.

The last 24 hours:
boot 11:15 am   Swap size = 0 GB

With Mail & Safari (just 6 tabs) open   
11:45 amSwap size = 8.26 GB 

Some more browsing, now with Chrome in the mix
3:15 pm = 15.9 GB   
7:21 pm = 20.59 GB

More browsing, playing some video through Airplay to an ATV
Left on overnight (meaning no reboot)
11:00 am=39.81 GB

The questions:
If the swap file size is dynamic, shouldn't it shrink when I quit out of 
applications?

Is anyone else seeing this kind of SWAP accumulation? Aye Yi Yi





On Nov 22, 2013, at 7:59 PM, steve harley  wrote:

> on 2013-11-21 15:41 LuKreme wrote
>> 
>> On 21 Nov 2013, at 12:26 , steve harley  wrote:
>> 
>>> Safari claiming 11GB of real memory
>> 
>> That seems excessive.
> 
> indeed, but it is just taking what it can; it would probably be lower if the 
> machine didn't have 16GB RAM, or higher if there weren't other apps competing 
> for RAM; in other words, in itself real memory is not a full measure of 
> memory status of an app
> 
> 
>>> and 143GB of VM!
>> 
>> That’s completely irrelevant.
> 
> first note that this was VPRVT, not VSIZE
> 
> knowing that VM is a matter of mapping address space, some of which is never 
> used and/or never transferred between RAM and disk, i still have a hard time 
> imagining what would need to be mapped to reach that figure, and it 
> correlated strongly with big performance problems
> 
> in the above case i didn't capture swap usage, but another time i recorded 
> what may be a different syndrome — 8GB of real and 19GB of VPRVT for Safari 
> Web Content (aka WebProcess in top); in this case, with no other "giant" 
> processes, i had 30GB of swap in use; the implication is that a substantial 
> portion of VPRVT represented data moved at least once between RAM and disk; 
> in both cases system response was terrible due to swapping, and quitting and 
> relaunching Safari with the same tabs brought performance back to normal for 
> at least a couple of days
> 
> ___
> MacOSX-talk mailing list
> MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[steve harley]

on 2013-11-23 15:11 list boy wrote

First some data:

MBA 4,2 with a 240gb SSD.


amount of RAM installed is a big factor; my guess is yours has 4GB



More browsing, playing some video through Airplay to an ATV
Left on overnight (meaning no reboot)
11:00 am=39.81 GB


something is chewing up swap at an unusual rate; use top or Activity Monitor to 
sort processes by VPRVT, you may find a culprit; if it looks like Safari or 
Chrome is doing it, i'd suspect some pages have large JavaScript apps running 
in them; with Chrome, as we have been discussing, the Task Manager lets you 
probe usage per tab (and per extension)




The questions:
If the swap file size is dynamic, shouldn't it shrink when I quit out of 
applications?


it will in many cases, but generally not in exact proportion to how much swap 
an app has caused to be added; some is "stuck" because, for example, different 
apps have both mapped memory to locations within the same swap file; it can 
take a while (minutes) to release what may be released




Is anyone else seeing this kind of SWAP accumulation? Aye Yi Yi


i have seen it near that high, though i bet i push my machine a lot harder; i 
also have 16GB of RAM, which essentially means 12GB more RAM must be consumed 
before i reach the same amount of swap


___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[LuKreme]

On 23 Nov 2013, at 15:11 , list boy  wrote:

> Can I get a swap file question in here?
> 
> First some data:
> 
> MBA 4,2 with a 240gb SSD.
> 
> The last 24 hours:
> boot 11:15 am Swap size = 0 GB
> 
> With Mail & Safari (just 6 tabs) open 
> 
> 11:45 am  Swap size = 8.26 GB 
> 
> Some more browsing, now with Chrome in the mix
> 3:15 pm   = 15.9 GB   
> 7:21 pm   = 20.59 GB
> 
> More browsing, playing some video through Airplay to an ATV
> Left on overnight (meaning no reboot)
> 11:00 am  =39.81 GB

Are sure that is swap ("Swap used" in Activity Monitor=>Memory)? I've *never* 
seen swap that large.

-- 
SOME SHADOWS ARE SO LONG, THEY ARRIVE BEFORE THE LIGHT. --Soul Music

___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[list boy]

On Nov 24, 2013, at 4:29 PM, LuKreme  wrote:

> Are sure that is swap ("Swap used" in Activity Monitor=>Memory)? I've *never* 
> seen swap that large.


Yep, double checked. Today's swap used is 39.12 GB, after 5 hours of uptime.

(I should have mentioned initially that my physical memory =  4 GB RAM)___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[LuKreme]

On 28 Nov 2013, at 11:17 , list boy  wrote:

> Yep, double checked. Today's swap used is 39.12 GB, after 5 hours of uptime.
> 
> (I should have mentioned initially that my physical memory =  4 GB RAM)

Wow. I can't even imagine that large a swap. My laptop doesn't have that much 
free space, even.

What was using up memory? Is this usual? Are you running the entire Adobe CS 
suite at once?

Granted, it's been awhile since I ran with 4GB of RAM, but sheesh.

-- 
If you have any young friends who aspire to become writers, the
second-greatest favor you can do them is to present them with copies of
The Elements of Style. The first-greatest, of course, is to shoot them
now, while they're happy. -Dorothy Parker

___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[Andy Lee]

On Nov 28, 2013, at 1:37 PM, LuKreme  wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2013, at 11:17 , list boy  wrote:
> 
>> Yep, double checked. Today's swap used is 39.12 GB, after 5 hours of uptime.
>> 
>> (I should have mentioned initially that my physical memory =  4 GB RAM)
> 
> Wow. I can't even imagine that large a swap. My laptop doesn't have that much 
> free space, even.

Once a browser has a page open with any kind of continually executing dynamic 
content that has a memory leak, swap space will keep growing ad infinitum.  I 
have found the problem correlates more with certain web sites than with 
particular browsers or plug-ins.  To me that indicates sloppy, even 
irresponsible coding on the part of either the web site developers or their 
advertisers.  Two culprits: I avoid leaving YouTube windows open, and I don't 
go to Huffington Post at all.  I once opened the JavaScript console and watched 
it scroll and scroll and scroll as a HuffPo page generated an endless stream of 
error messages.

When my computer starts bogging down I run this command:

ls -lh /var/vm

On my primary machine, an MBP running Mavericks with 8 GB RAM, I got this just 
now:

total 6422528
-rw--T  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 15:46 sleepimage
-rw---  1 root  wheel64M Nov 28 15:46 swapfile0
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 16:30 swapfile1
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 16:15 swapfile2

In the past I wouldn't have been surprised to see this list get up to 
swapfile8, regardless of which browser I used.  (By the way, I'm one of those 
people with dozens of open browser tabs; I do feel it is a disease of some 
sort.)  But Safari 7 is clearly doing something more efficient with memory -- 
something Firefox doesn't do, because I switched to it for a while and saw the 
swap space go up just like it did pre-Mavericks.

A little while ago I went to do something on my other machine, an iMac running 
Mountain Lion with 16 GB RAM.  That machine is usually very snappy, but it was 
being strangely sluggish, so I listed the swapfiles and here's what I got:

total 52428800
-rw---  1 root  wheel64M Nov 28 14:26 swapfile0
-rw---  1 root  wheel64M Nov 28 14:26 swapfile1
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile10
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile11
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile12
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile13
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile14
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile15
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile16
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile17
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile18
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile19
-rw---  1 root  wheel   128M Nov 28 14:26 swapfile2
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile20
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile21
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile22
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile23
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile24
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile25
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile26
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile27
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile28
-rw---  1 root  wheel   256M Nov 28 14:26 swapfile3
-rw---  1 root  wheel   512M Nov 28 14:26 swapfile4
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile5
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile6
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile7
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile8
-rw---  1 root  wheel   1.0G Nov 28 14:26 swapfile9

This machine often has only a couple of swapfiles at most, because of its 
greater amount of RAM and because I don't use it as heavily as my MBP.  I only 
had about a dozen tabs open in Safari, but one or more of them, I haven't 
figured out which, had been doing something leaky over the past day or days.  I 
quit Safari and the number soon shrank back down to swapfile8.

It pisses me off when I see these swapfile explosions.  Fifteen years ago if 
you'd given me the specs of Apple's puniest 2013 computer, and told me a 
browser couldn't trivially have 200 web pages open at once, and that it would 
matter if I left the browser running for a day, I would have thought you were 
nuts.

--Andy

___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[Michael]

> It pisses me off when I see these swapfile explosions.  Fifteen years ago if 
> you'd given me the specs of Apple's puniest 2013 computer, and told me a 
> browser couldn't trivially have 200 web pages open at once, and that it would 
> matter if I left the browser running for a day, I would have thought you were 
> nuts.
> 
> --Andy

Agreed. I think that web browser designers have gotten sloppy and "we have all 
the resources in the world" mentality. I think that whoever design the current 
HTML standards should have to try to implement a reference implementation that 
does 100% perfect, in a 32 MB machine.

Yes, I said MB. 32 MB is a huge amount of space for programs and data. There is 
no reason, at all, that I should need 400 MB just to start up a browser. On a 1 
GB PPC machine, I could easily browse the web with room left over. Heck, back 
on a 32 MB 68040 machine, web browsing was relatively simple and easy.

There's no reason for browsers to be gigantic sloths.
There's no reason for a standard that says "Remote execution of arbitrary code 
cannot be prevented by the end user without addons to modify the browser".

And there's no reason for a web browser not to run that remote untrusted code 
in a sandbox that can be dumped if it's a memory leak, or at least identifiable 
as to which sandbox is the leak.

Fifteen years ago, 1999, ... was that when FF 3 was new? ... It was after the 
end of the pizza box, I think it was post tables, before the whole "div and CSS 
layers and the web page is now a layout language" thing too over. 
___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[list boy]

On Nov 28, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Michael  wrote:

> There's no reason for a standard that says "Remote execution of arbitrary 
> code cannot be prevented by the end user without addons to modify the 
> browser".


Can we talk about those add-ons?

Because these two ¶ below made me pump my fist! 

> And there's no reason for a web browser not to run that remote untrusted code 
> in a sandbox that can be dumped if it's a memory leak, or at least 
> identifiable as to which sandbox is the leak.

> 

> Fifteen years ago, 1999, ... was that when FF 3 was new? … 


(We're going backwards, and I'm not going to take it any more)

___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[LuKreme]

On 28 Nov 2013, at 18:48 , Michael  wrote:

>  back on a 32 MB 68040 machine, web browsing was relatively simple and easy.

But it was all text and some images. No video. No dynamic content. No JSON.

-- 
Strange things are afoot at the Circle K

___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[Carl Hoefs]

On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:51 PM, LuKreme  wrote:
> 
> On 28 Nov 2013, at 18:48 , Michael  wrote:
> 
>> back on a 32 MB 68040 machine, web browsing was relatively simple and easy.
> 
> But it was all text and some images. No video. No dynamic content. No JSON.

Come to think of it, I've never noticed any bloat from IE on Windows. Do they 
manage memory differently?

___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[Lawrence Sica]

On Nov 30, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Carl Hoefs  wrote:

> On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:51 PM, LuKreme  wrote:
>> 
>> On 28 Nov 2013, at 18:48 , Michael  wrote:
>> 
>>> back on a 32 MB 68040 machine, web browsing was relatively simple and easy.
>> 
>> But it was all text and some images. No video. No dynamic content. No JSON.
> 
> Come to think of it, I've never noticed any bloat from IE on Windows. Do they 
> manage memory differently?

Really?  What version of IE?  I’ve seen it eat lots of memory.  Really all 
browsers tend to do so I think.

—Larry


___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[Andy Lee]

On Dec 1, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Lawrence Sica  wrote:

> 
> On Nov 30, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Carl Hoefs  
> wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:51 PM, LuKreme  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 28 Nov 2013, at 18:48 , Michael  wrote:
>>> 
 back on a 32 MB 68040 machine, web browsing was relatively simple and easy.
>>> 
>>> But it was all text and some images. No video. No dynamic content. No JSON.
>> 
>> Come to think of it, I've never noticed any bloat from IE on Windows. Do 
>> they manage memory differently?
> 
> Really?  What version of IE?  I’ve seen it eat lots of memory.  Really all 
> browsers tend to do so I think.

I don't know about memory, but I recently learned that IE has been using a 
separate process per tab (as Chrome does) since IE8, years before Apple added 
it in Safari 7.  Been meaning to post this link:



Back on the memory topic: if web sites are going to routinely leak massive 
amounts of memory, regardless of who's to blame, I'd like browsers to let me 
put a cap on how much memory each tab uses.  Kind of like the old days of 
Classic Mac OS, when we could limit the amount of memory each application could 
use.

--Andy

___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[list boy]

But then you crash when you hit that ceiling, right?

I think need to learn what to do with browser pages that I want to read later, 
but nothing (Evernote/Pocket/Instapaper/Pinboard/Safari's reading list) I've 
tried have I been able to stick with…

 
On Dec 10, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Andy Lee  wrote:

> Back on the memory topic: if web sites are going to routinely leak massive 
> amounts of memory, regardless of who's to blame, I'd like browsers to let me 
> put a cap on how much memory each tab uses. Kind of like the old days of 
> Classic Mac OS, when we could limit the amount of memory each application 
> could use.

___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[objectwerks inc]

On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:57 PM, list boy  wrote:

> But then you crash when you hit that ceiling, right?

No.  Of course not.  The page may stop functioning but the browser does not 
crash (in his hypothetical situation).
 
> On Dec 10, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Andy Lee  wrote:
> 
>> Back on the memory topic: if web sites are going to routinely leak massive 
>> amounts of memory, regardless of who's to blame, I'd like browsers to let me 
>> put a cap on how much memory each tab uses. Kind of like the old days of 
>> Classic Mac OS, when we could limit the amount of memory each application 
>> could use.
> 
> ___
> MacOSX-talk mailing list
> MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[Andy Lee]

On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:30 AM, objectwerks inc  wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:57 PM, list boy  wrote:
> 
>> But then you crash when you hit that ceiling, right?
> 
> No.  Of course not.  The page may stop functioning but the browser does not 
> crash (in his hypothetical situation).

Right.  We have a similar precedent now when the browser shows an alert saying 
something like "web pages have stopped responding".  In Safari it used to crash 
the one big process that was responsible for rendering all your web pages -- 
barely better than simply crashing the app, except Apple could semi-truthfully 
say "we didn't crash".  (It wasn't even that the process crashed.  First it 
would say "you can't proceed unless you essentially allow us to crash that 
process" -- in other words, it pointed a gun at the process and made *us* pull 
the trigger.)

Now Safari is much nicer and can kill just the processes for the offending 
tabs, and it tells you first how many web pages it has to kill/reload.  For me 
it's usually 3 or 4 out of the dozens I have open, at most.  This is much nicer 
but the warning does still happen.

--Andy

>  
>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Andy Lee  wrote:
>> 
>>> Back on the memory topic: if web sites are going to routinely leak massive 
>>> amounts of memory, regardless of who's to blame, I'd like browsers to let 
>>> me put a cap on how much memory each tab uses. Kind of like the old days of 
>>> Classic Mac OS, when we could limit the amount of memory each application 
>>> could use.
>> 
>> ___
>> MacOSX-talk mailing list
>> MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
>> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
> 
> ___
> MacOSX-talk mailing list
> MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

Re: Surprised ...

[Andy Lee]

On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:57 PM, list boy  wrote:
> But then you crash when you hit that ceiling, right?
> 
> I think need to learn what to do with browser pages that I want to read 
> later, but nothing (Evernote/Pocket/Instapaper/Pinboard/Safari's reading 
> list) I've tried have I been able to stick with…

Of the online ones I like Pinboard best.  I found it easy to use, and something 
about the feel of it agreed with me.

My latest thing has been to give up hope on an online bookmarking solution.  
Instead, I dump web pages into EagleFiler.  I have used it for many years, and 
I like that I can do quick full-text searches because it's all local.

If I'm away from the computer where EagleFiler is installed, I usually email 
links and stuff to myself and put them into EagleFiler when I get home.  In 
theory I think it has Dropbox support, but I don't trust any app to do document 
syncing, no matter how good the developer (and Michael Tsai is good).  The only 
document syncing that I trust to scale is the revision control I use as a 
developer.

--Andy

___
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk