Re: browsers have become memory hogs
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 07:04:23PM -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 07:10:04AM -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> >
> Yes, the system does thrash, not a complete lockup. But, if you try to
> move the cursor and few times with no results it certainly seems like a
> lockup. I can usually get the system to switch to a VT where I can run
> top and kill the offending process, but it can take several minutes
> before it will do even that. It doesn't happen often, but with X
> running on three separate terminals (my wife, daughter and I each have
> our own setup running on this machine) and firefox running in each of
> them it does happen every now and then. My wife currently has 18 tabs
> open in firefox. My daughter only has one, but it has some kids
> game/education site up, all of which use flash. I usually have three or
> four tabs open, although I only have one at the moment.
>
> I have never actually used nice, before. I guess I had better do some
> research.
Before, I scoffed at 512 MB being considered low-ram, but you're having
one box be three workstations at the same time. I suggest that you
triple the ram in this case.
One difference between FF and Konqueror is that FF keeps the rendered
pages in its own memory map while Konqueror keeps the rendered pages in
the xorg memory map. On one of my setups it matters: when you ssh in
from a light-weight box to the power box, konqueror with many tabs
thrashes the light-weight box while FF uses the ample memory on the
power box.
I wonder if in this case, you may get better performance with konq if
there is only one xorg process. I don't know since I have never run
three x sessions at once.
Doug.
Reply to: