On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Mike Belshembel...@google.com wrote:
Anecdotally, a couple of people have said it works and a couple of people
have said it makes no difference. I do believe that people doing compiles
could see a difference.
To determine if it was real, we did an experiment
Actually, I had done testing like that in a VM to get a sense of raw
process/threads limits on a low memory system. It's relatively easy to
achieve a fair level of confidence with a live VM snapshot and making sure
to reuse the same timings for measurement.
The measurement timing is important
If I recall correctly, the best way we found to measure the total memory
usage of a multi-process system like chrome was to measure the total commit
charge of windows as you run the test. This will correctly account for
shared memory, mapped pages that have been touched, kernel memory, etc. I
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Linus Upsonli...@google.com wrote:
If I recall correctly, the best way we found to measure the total memory
usage of a multi-process system like chrome was to measure the total commit
charge of windows as you run the test.
My favorite test is to plot the
This one is the hardest to test, you need to run a pristinely clean system
to execute.
Also - don't forget to make the browser window sizes the same (and with the
same amount of visible window) for all browsers under test, because if the
kernel can't offload to the graphics card, the display
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Mike Beltzner beltz...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 25-Jun-09, at 7:02 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
This screen actually confuses me a little, as the Summary statistics don't
match the summation of the process based statistics. Do you mean to say your
summary statistics
On 26-Jun-09, at 12:59 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
Overall, though, that should mean that we're *not* double counting
memory. In fact, when I observed as the test ran, there were only
three processes: one for the browser, one for the single content
process from which all tabs were spawned,
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Mike Beltzner beltz...@mozilla.comwrote:
On 26-Jun-09, at 12:59 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
Overall, though, that should mean that we're *not* double counting memory.
In fact, when I observed as the test ran, there were only three processes:
one for the browser,
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Mike Beltzner beltz...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 22-Jun-09, at 12:57 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
Yes, that accurately represents the private memory for a process, but it
doesn't reflect the user's experience. Windows generally tracks working
set. Why? Because the
On 25-Jun-09, at 12:52 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
Yeah, the APIs all have constraints. We end up walking the pages
and adding them up. See process_util_win.cc in the chromium tree.
Be sure to check about:memory and hover over the little ? icons to
see what we measure.
This screen
On 25-Jun-09, at 6:26 PM, Mike Beltzner wrote:
here's a ZIP with the
required code (needs Python 2.5 or later to be installed on your
system):
Oops, forgot the link!
http://people.mozilla.org/~beltzner/membuster-talos.rar
cheers,
mike
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Mike Beltzner beltz...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 25-Jun-09, at 12:52 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
Yeah, the APIs all have constraints. We end up walking the pages and
adding them up. See process_util_win.cc in the chromium tree. Be sure to
check about:memory and
On 25-Jun-09, at 7:02 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
This screen actually confuses me a little, as the Summary statistics
don't match the summation of the process based statistics. Do you
mean to say your summary statistics take into account the memory
that's being shared across the various
FWIW, I strongly believe we should move the default to --memory-model=high.
This is what pretty much every other app in the world does, and we mostly
penalize ourselves when the OS aggressively swaps us out for a dumb reason
(which yes, Windows does do).
We have a lot of complaints of I came back
+1. Most people are not doing compiles, we're trying to say that people live
in the web and in their browser, and that their browser is the primary
application. For me at least, that is true. The browser is the app I use the
most -- the only other app I use regularly is an ssh client, which can
Could we stat at memory-model=hight and then change our memory model
mid-flight if there are any large, non-chrome, memory hungry
processes?
-- Elliot
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Ian Fettei...@chromium.org wrote:
+1. Most people are not doing compiles, we're trying to say that people live
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Ian Fette i...@chromium.org wrote:
+1. Most people are not doing compiles, we're trying to say that people
live in the web and in their browser, and that their browser is the primary
application. For me at least, that is true. The browser is the app I use the
I am willing to volunteer to be a test case if you need one, tell me what to
do so you will be able to monitor.Before I added that switch, it was pretty
horrible.
Though I am building stuff with Java, XSLT, JavaScript that process a lot of
files (HTMLs) and viewing and refreshing a lot of pages
This explanation actually shows me the source of this serious jank (I hope I
am using the term in the right context) I am having all of the time.I am
getting back to Chrome after a few minutes of dealing with some other
application and I have to wait, sometimes even for twenty seconds or more,
Have you tried running with --memory-model=high ?
2009/6/23 PhistucK phist...@gmail.com:
This explanation actually shows me the source of this serious jank (I hope I
am using the term in the right context) I am having all of the time.
I am getting back to Chrome after a few minutes of dealing
No. I added it now and I will post the results later.
Thank you!
I really hope it will help...
☆PhistucK
2009/6/23 Dean McNamee de...@chromium.org
Have you tried running with --memory-model=high ?
2009/6/23 PhistucK phist...@gmail.com:
This explanation actually shows me the source of this
Mike, yes we (I) increased the number of renderer processes for
machines with lots of ram. I think it tops now to 40 processes.
Our previous limit was not based on calculation but because we had
WaitForMultipleObjects(..) which has a 64 objects maximum and we had 2
objects per process so our
Wow, that changed my whole browsing experience.I got back to the computer
after it has been on all of the night, with Chrome (and others) running and
when I got back to Chrome, I did not even have to wait for a bit!!!
Thank you very much for pointing it out. It was quite frustrating before
(but I
2009/6/21 PhistucK phist...@gmail.com
Really? the statistics show that many people are using the app mode?Or did
you mean web apps, as in web application websites?
I mean web applications like gmail, hotmail, zoho, shopping carts, etc etc.
But it's an unsubstantiated claim.
Mike
On 21-Jun-09, at 10:22 AM, Mike Belshe wrote:
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
I built a web based application in php to upload dvd vob files to a
server via the browser. The only browser that makes this project a non
failure is chrome. Forget trying to upload 4+ gigs with Internet
Explorer. It can not handle the memory addressing. Firefox fails 90%
of the time. However
On Jun 21, 3:37 am, n179911 n179...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
There is a test which compares memory usage among rendering
engineshttp://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory
From the site, it shows the maximum memory usage of Chrome is more
than Safari is 2 times.
Since both of them are Webkit base,
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Mike Beltzner beltz...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 21-Jun-09, at 10:22 AM, Mike Belshe wrote:
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
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 12:37 AM, n179911n179...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a test which compares memory usage among rendering engines
http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory
From the site, it shows the maximum memory usage of Chrome is more
than Safari is 2 times.
From TFA:
Google Chrome
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Elliot Glaysher (Chromium)
e...@chromium.org wrote:
Google Chrome posted the highest maximum memory usage ***when all
chrome.exe processes were summed***, reaching 1.18 gigabytes, while
Firefox posted the lowest maximum memory levels of 327.65 megabytes.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 12:37 AM, n179911 n179...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
There is a test which compares memory usage among rendering engines
http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory
From the site, it shows the maximum memory usage of Chrome is more
than Safari is 2 times.
Since both of them
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
use --single-process
On Jun 21, 3:37 pm, n179911 n179...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
There is a test which compares memory usage among rendering
engineshttp://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory
From the site, it shows the maximum memory usage of Chrome is more
than Safari is 2 times.
Since both of
FYI, --single-process only works in Chromium. It's disabled in Google Chrome.
Search for switches::kSingleProcess in
http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/app/chrome_dll_main.cc?revision=18801view=markup
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:22 PM, estelectronix...@gmail.com wrote:
use
Really? the statistics show that many people are using the app mode?Or did
you mean web apps, as in web application websites?
☆PhistucK
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 21:03, Mike Belshe mbel...@google.com wrote:
I assume he's not a benchmark pro, but he did a decent job already. We
can nitpick
35 matches
Mail list logo
