Why does Firefox use 47 MB of RAM?

[Questioner]

I just did a "ps aux" on my Linux system and realized that
Firefox uses a massive 47 MB of RAM, and Thunderbird
uses an amazing 45 MB. I don't have a "hot rod" P4 computer
so perhaps this is all the more alarming to me, but
something seems to have gone wrong, I think. These are
programs that deal with piddling amounts of user data,
yet there so big!

I know that a good chunk of each is just shared
libraries, or so I infer because it seems to say that
the intrinsic usage is more like 25 MB each, but still...
25 megabytes is a lot of memory.

Just what the heck is all that RAM being used for
anyway?

And how has it come to this, that software that
deals with mere tens or hundreds of kilobytes of actual
user data somehow requires tens of megabytes of memory
to process it?

And I know what some will say, oh, the Windoze
and the Macintosh applications use the same
amount of memory... Well that doesn't justify it
in my view. Three examples of bad engineering
(or no engineering at all, I should say) don't make
it right.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (26 Dec 2005 06:28:32 -0800) it happened "Questioner "
<x6***@yahoo.co m> wrote in
<11************ **********@g49g 2000cwa.googleg roups.com>:

I just did a "ps aux" on my Linux system and realized that
Firefox uses a massive 47 MB of RAM, and Thunderbird
uses an amazing 45 MB. I don't have a "hot rod" P4 computer
so perhaps this is all the more alarming to me, but
something seems to have gone wrong, I think. These are
programs that deal with piddling amounts of user data,
yet there so big! Not to worry,. it will all be swapped out to disk :-)
On the Duron 950
top
Mem: 386780K av, 382692K used, 4088K free, 0K shrd, 8184K buff
Swap: 530104K av, 176208K used, 353896K free 181920K cached

hehe
I know that a good chunk of each is just shared
libraries, or so I infer because it seems to say that
the intrinsic usage is more like 25 MB each, but still...
25 megabytes is a lot of memory. The 2 GB chip is out from Samsung and some others, 8 of these make 2GByte.
2000 / 25 = 80 Firefoxes..
This is likely the way of thinking, remember Billy The Gates claiming:
'640 KILO Byte should be enough for anyone?'
Price per bit is going way down....
Just what the heck is all that RAM being used for
anyway? my_memory = (char*) malloc(25000000 );
?

And how has it come to this, that software that
deals with mere tens or hundreds of kilobytes of actual
user data somehow requires tens of megabytes of memory
to process it? yea, look how long it takes to render some html pages....

And I know what some will say, oh, the Windoze
and the Macintosh applications use the same
amount of memory... Well that doesn't justify it
in my view. Three examples of bad engineering
(or no engineering at all, I should say) don't make
it right.

Aha, well, many years ago I thought:
'mm maybe I should write my own webbrowser'.
Some related routines are in NewsFleX newsreader (I wrote), but I learned
really fast: That writing a good webbrowser is a lifetime project....
And some already are at it....
You can join them or improve, it is open source.
Something Win XP / exploder users cannot do.
But considering that cost per byte thingy, make sure your time adds up to
enough saving....

[mst]

On 26 Dec 2005 06:28:32 -0800 "Questioner " <x6***@yahoo.co m> wrote:

[snip]

And I know what some will say, oh, the Windoze
and the Macintosh applications use the same
amount of memory... Well that doesn't justify it
in my view. Three examples of bad engineering
(or no engineering at all, I should say) don't make
it right.

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=407044
http://developers.slashdot.org/artic.../11/25/1817215

--
remove MYSHOES to email

[Viator]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Aha, well, many years ago I thought:
'mm maybe I should write my own webbrowser'.
Some related routines are in NewsFleX newsreader (I wrote), but I learned
really fast: That writing a good webbrowser is a lifetime project....
And some already are at it....
You can join them or improve, it is open source.
I tried that myself. HTML is bad enough, I got it mostly working,
but adding Javascript would have taken real dedication.
I try to use Dillo when I am viewing simple pages. It's *much*
faster than Firefox on my older system.
But considering that cost per byte thingy, make sure your time adds up to
enough saving....

Yeah, but meanwhile, the landfills are filling up with our toxic
electronic waste, leaching it into our water supply etc.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (26 Dec 2005 07:29:51 -0800) it happened "Viator"
<x6***@yahoo.co m> wrote in
<11************ *********@g49g2 000cwa.googlegr oups.com>:
Yeah, but meanwhile, the landfills are filling up with our toxic

electronic waste, leaching it into our water supply etc.

Not to worry, that will all disappear in the background noise once the
WW3 nukes start flying in April (accourding to Dr. Sarfatti).

[Questioner]

Panteltje a dit:

Not to worry, that will all disappear in the background noise once the
WW3 nukes start flying in April (accourding to Dr. Sarfatti).

Oh, no. Not that idiot again. He came and did a presentation
at our Mensa group a couple years ago. I don't remember
the topic, but everyone pretty much picked apart his bogus
argumentation, showing he was full of it but in a polite way,
and then rather than admit he was wrong, he started acting petty
and issuing ad hominem attacks.

That isn't to say that WW3 isn't possible, but to pretend
Sarfatti has a clue about the how/why/when/who would
be too generous.

[Kasper Dupont]

Questioner wrote:

Just what the heck is all that RAM being used for
anyway?

First look through /proc/%d/maps to see how much
is used for memory mappings and how much are
anonymous allocations. If you think there is too
much anonymous memory, then you will need to go
hunting in the source.

--
Kasper Dupont
Note to self: Don't try to allocate
256000 pages with GFP_KERNEL on x86.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (26 Dec 2005 11:14:44 -0800) it happened "Questioner "
<x6***@yahoo.co m> wrote in
<11************ **********@o13g 2000cwo.googleg roups.com>:

Panteltje a dit:

Not to worry, that will all disappear in the background noise once the
WW3 nukes start flying in April (accourding to Dr. Sarfatti).

Oh, no. Not that idiot again. He came and did a presentation
at our Mensa group a couple years ago. I don't remember
the topic, but everyone pretty much picked apart his bogus
argumentatio n, showing he was full of it but in a polite way,
and then rather than admit he was wrong, he started acting petty
and issuing ad hominem attacks.

That isn't to say that WW3 isn't possible, but to pretend
Sarfatti has a clue about the how/why/when/who would
be too generous.

Here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...d9adfc98ec9443

He has also made it clear he was contacted by Aliens when young,
and I think he has been through a wormhole and came back before he left,
so he should know...

Some of us think Jack was victim of a student joke when that 'alien' called
him on the phone.....
Still he keeps it all up and has been for so many years, probably it sells.
Cannot believe he really believes in his own stuff, but of cause statistically
speaking he will be right some times.
And statistics get really weird once you have traveled back in time.....

[David Schwartz]

"Questioner " <x6***@yahoo.co m> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ g49g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .

I just did a "ps aux" on my Linux system and realized that
Firefox uses a massive 47 MB of RAM, and Thunderbird
uses an amazing 45 MB. I don't have a "hot rod" P4 computer
so perhaps this is all the more alarming to me, but
something seems to have gone wrong, I think. These are
programs that deal with piddling amounts of user data,
yet there so big!

How did you determine that Firefox was using 47MB of RAM (physical
memory)? Are you sure it wasn't just usaing 47Mb of virtual memory?

DS

[Eric]

Questioner wrote:

Panteltje a dit:

Not to worry, that will all disappear in the background noise once the
WW3 nukes start flying in April (accourding to Dr. Sarfatti).

Oh, no. Not that idiot again. He came and did a presentation
at our Mensa group a couple years ago. I don't remember
the topic, but everyone pretty much picked apart his bogus
argumentation, showing he was full of it but in a polite way,
and then rather than admit he was wrong, he started acting petty
and issuing ad hominem attacks.

That isn't to say that WW3 isn't possible, but to pretend
Sarfatti has a clue about the how/why/when/who would
be too generous.

One plausible scenario is : "Arc Light" by Eric Harry
Its fiction but you can just see it happening, well written and
you wont be able to put it down.
Eric (no its not by me)

Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
In a scenario terrifyingly close to today's headlines, Harry's debut novel
opens with a North Korean invasion of South Korea that leads, through a
series of tragic errors and decisions, to a Russian nuclear attack on
military bases in the U.S. Like techno-thriller master Tom Clancy, Harry
offers a sprawling narrative that focuses on a small army of soldiers,
politicians and their families, American and Russian. National Security
Advisor Greg Lambert must keep and tell secrets that may lead to
Armageddon; Reservist David Chandler must leave his pregnant wife in order
to drive a tank; U.S. President Walter Livingston, eager for peace, must
endure the ignominy of impeachment; Russian General Yuri Razov must deal
with the consequences of his initial decision to launch nuclear missiles.
Ground, air and submarine battles alternate with scenes of anarchy
stateside as exhausted leaders are forced to make instant decisions that
might snuff out humanity forever. With a masterful grasp of military
strategy and geopolitics, Harry moves his characters through nightmares of
blood and death; his intricately detailed scenes of nuclear devastation are
particularly horrifying. Told through a series of rapid-fire climaxes, this
novel, a political and military cautionary tale of considerable power and
conviction, will keep readers riveted.