On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 21:06, Bobby Powers <bobbypow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:27:00AM -0500, Bobby Powers wrote: >>>On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:21:50AM +0000, Bobby Powers wrote: >>>>>An informal test showed that Browse in sugar-emulator used 100MB in >>>>>opening and navigating to gmail, while surf used 85MB. That still >>>>>seems like a lot, but its a 15% savings right off the bat. >>>> >>>> Please document how to measure the memory use (even if non-academic), >>>> to make it possible to compare on other environments using exact same >>>> measuring method (as I suspect it may vary a lot, depending on >>>> compile options of e.g. xulrunner). >>> >>>What I did: >>>step 1: run a new instance of sugar-emulator >>>step 2: click on the browse or surf icon from the home view >>>step 3: navigate to https://mail.google.com >>>step 4: log in using your gmail credentials >>>step 5: open gnome-system-monitor and check the memory usage >> >> Thanks. >> >> You did mention that your test was informal. Anyway, here are some notes >> if someone ones to test further: >> >> I avoid registered Google services, and I guess I am not the only one: >> It would probably be good to use some public web pages. > > I will do more testing over the next few days. My choice of gmail was > based on the fact that its one of the most complex web > sites/applications I could think of quickly. > >> Memory usage seem to also be about cleaning up memory[1], so probably >> would make sense to measure a larger number of web pages (fully loading >> all content on each page and then move on to the next page). >> >> I don't use GNOME, and don't know how it calculates memory consumption. >> Probably would be better to use terminal-based measurement like "free" >> or some other tool providing more optimal info. >> >> While googling for info about this, I also stumbled across a hint that >> Gecko-based browsers can be configured to use more or less memory cache >> - - and has a live status by entering about:cache in the address entry. >> Would be interesting to know if WebKit-based browsers have something >> similar. > > I think there are configuration options somewhere, as I seem to > remember that Chrome on Andriod (based on webkit) can be configured to > clear its memory caches when the kernel signals that it is low on > memory.
Any chance Sugar (and its dependencies) can do that on normal Linux systems one day? Regards, Tomeu >> >> - Jonas >> >> >> [1] Pages like http://dotnetperls.com/Content/Browser-Memory.aspx >> demonstrate how WebKit-based browsers in the past have struggled with >> not cleaning up properly after itself. That test was done on Windows, >> but http://blog.pavlov.net/2008/03/11/firefox-3-memory-usage/ mentions >> how recent Gecko at least (don't know about WebKit) use same memory >> allocator on Windows and Linux. > > wow. it should be quite interesting to look at the memory usage over > time to see if webkit has either fixed their memory leaks or caching > strategy. > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel