Re: Frustration made me do it.
08/12/2010 06:46, Miles Bader wrote:
> Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> writes:
>> Mozilla products are memory/CPU hogs, yes. I hope newer versions can
>> correct that.
>
> I find that chromium actually seems to use _more_ memory for a given
> amount of content.
>
> However with chromium it's really easy to reduce the usage by closing
> tabs; with FF (etc) that doesn't work.
>
> -Miles
>
I have the same experience, since I read this thread I did a bit of
testing with Chromium and Iceweasel from squeeze and experimental. Most
of the time memory use is a bit lower with chromium though, but it uses
more ram when loading content.
Also when looking at chromium ram usage top isn't the right tool,
chromium starts many threads (that's one of it's core feature) so using
something like "smem" and comparing RSS values might be more accurate (I
used "smem -tkP [c]hromium", adding "-m" option to have a closer look at
extensions memory use).
But even looking at the whole session memory usage there isn't a big
difference here (kde, cold start with empty session, only one browser
started, same tabs for each browser, changing tabs content after a few
try). Also did tests with a few extensions that perform the same duty in
each browser (like ad-blocking, flash blocking, session and cookies
management), I couldn't see a major difference between the two.
Chromium does load content a bit faster most of the time, but uses more
memory to do so. Caching is about the same for the two browsers.
No memory leak in sight with any of these two, even after a full day,
both give memory back when closed equally but Chromium gives some back
when in use (closing tabs, loading less "intensive" content...),
iceweasel only gives back smaller amounts in the same situations.
Iceweasel memory usage is more "flat" during browsing sessions when
chromium is adjusting better.
Overall chromium has a small edge, but not very noticeable here. I use
both happily anyway !
Reply to: