Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP) wrote on 20/01/16 04:42:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 01:25:22 +0100, Gabriel <user@domain.invalid>
wrote:
Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP] wrote on 19/01/16 16:15:
Could you post your about:memory report here when it grows that big.
Here it is:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dr4di3yeu33qman/SeaMonkey2.39-memory-report.json.gz?dl=0
Any chance you could try with the 2.40 candidate build and see if
things improve?
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/seamonkey/candidates/2.40-candidates/build3/mac/en-US/
I installed it, apparently there is a better use of compressed memory, and the
total memory is a little bit lower; but I'm going to test it tomorrow.
That's a positive sign. Do as you usually do, beat it up, give it a
good kicking and use it as you normally would. And you are at 10.11.3
right (was just released today, soon to followed by 10.11.4)? We've
noticed a large performance increase in going from 10.11.1 to 10.11.2
at my org. Haven't yet bumped to 10.11.3, waiting on the Guinea pigs
first. ;-)
Hi,
after 15 hours the used memory grown up to about 2.4GB (medium I'd say 1.8/2)
but some 40% was compressed. I think SM 2.40 is still normally usable even if
using a lot of RAM, while the previous versions become soooo slow with the same
values.
Also the connections to my mail server are faster.
I'm with OS X 10.11.3 now.
Gabriel
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
