[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: swap



On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 06:56:51PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote:
> Nigel Henry wrote:
> > On Tuesday 08 May 2007 16:21, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> [snip]
> >> Sometimes, just links2, sometimes konq.  I ususally use Xfce but have
> >> tried it with just rxvt, pdmenu, then links2 or konq.  Try this site:
> >>
> >> http://www.uhn.ca/Clinics_&_Services/services/asthma
> >>
> >> Then click on "Our Team".
> >>
> >> I don't know what's with this site but all of a sudden Xorg starts
> >> racking up the memory.  When I leave the site, the memory footprint
> >> doesn't shrink.  Eventually, I just exit X and startx again.  Not that
> >> it thrashes, but...
> > 
> >> Doug.
> > 
> > Wow! That site doesn't half hammer the RAM. On my Gateway P111 500Mhz machine 
> > with 250MB RAM, gkrellm normally shows about 190MB free (no swap used).
> > 
> > Going to the site started to hit the RAM. It was up and down like a yo-yo, 
> > dropping as low as 11.1MB free, and with frequent freezing of gkrellm.
> > 
> > Clicked on "our team", and the RAM got hammered again. Big freezeup of 
> > gkrellm, then the page was loaded, and free RAM levelled out at 84MB. That 
> > means that 110MB of RAM is being used to view the site. There has to 
> > something wrong with it, surely.
> > 
> > That was using FC2, KDE, and Konqueror.
> > 
> > Nigel.
> 
> Confirmed,  That site does use 110MB of RAM.  Why?  Who knows?  The page
> is not that big.  It's a perfect example of why I say that modern web
> pages suck.  <div> all over the place formatting itself to it's
> resolution instead of mine.
> 
> It seems to me, some webmasters should be shot. ;)
> 

yep. 

but works fine here in up-to-date sid/xfce/iceweasel. my ram usage
goes from 304MB, to 328MB on the front page. no change in "our team"
and frees it when I close the tab. Now 25MB is definitely huge for a
webpage, but its not causing anything like you guys are suggesting. 


A

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: