Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Firefox Enables Generational GC To Compete With Chrome

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Firefox Enables Generational GC To Compete With Chrome

    Phoronix: Firefox Enables Generational GC To Compete With Chrome

    The latest Mozilla Firefox nightly builds have begun enabling the generational garbage collector to better compete with Google's Chrome on performance grounds...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY0Nzc

  • #2
    I have 10 tabs open in firefox ... 1Gb. That is obscene the pages aren't that large either Netsurf can load any one of them (except facebook since they have sshl issues) and never cross 30Mb. Thats 300Mb if I am generous for the HTML and image data... is javascript eating up 700Mb? The fact is Netsurf was able to load some of the pages in less than 5Mb from a fresh start the rest is just cache.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by cb88 View Post
      I have 10 tabs open in firefox ... 1Gb. That is obscene the pages aren't that large either Netsurf can load any one of them (except facebook since they have sshl issues) and never cross 30Mb. Thats 300Mb if I am generous for the HTML and image data... is javascript eating up 700Mb? The fact is Netsurf was able to load some of the pages in less than 5Mb from a fresh start the rest is just cache.
      Curious, but what addons/extensions are you using? Mozilla has often stated that some of its worst memory consumption/leak offenders were poorly coded add-ons. I'm sure some of the blame can be laid at Mozilla's feet, but it might not be all them.

      Comment


      • #4
        FYI, the current GC in SpiderMonkey is an incremental GC using Mark and Sweep - it's equivalent to having a single generation. I'd expect that they are still using the incremental GC for each of the generational buckets in their new GC algorithm.

        Reference: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/...age_collection

        Comment


        • #5
          For reference, I've got 10 tabs open as well, and I'm sitting under 300MB memory usage currently. That's still more than I like, but it's nowhere near the 1GB you've got.

          Currently enabled extensions:
          Firebug (enabled but not active on any pages)
          Garmin Communicator (to sync my watch's GPS recordings for biking/running)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by cb88 View Post
            I have 10 tabs open in firefox ... 1Gb. That is obscene the pages aren't that large either Netsurf can load any one of them (except facebook since they have sshl issues) and never cross 30Mb. Thats 300Mb if I am generous for the HTML and image data... is javascript eating up 700Mb? The fact is Netsurf was able to load some of the pages in less than 5Mb from a fresh start the rest is just cache.
            It really depends on the types of webpages. even simplistic webpages can kill your computer if they're of the infinite-scrolling variety. Google came up with a pretty cool concept of a paginated version of infinite scrolling. It's a shame they don't use it for G+ because that's the perfect demonstration of the drawbacks of infinite-scrolling pages.

            Comment


            • #7
              Adblock which netsurf also has builtin via css blocking... and DownloadHelper so one addon which "counts".

              Comment


              • #8
                I have 310 tabs open and 2,6 GiB memory usage, I find that pretty good.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Disabled DownloadHelper... 260Mb after reloading the session. 600Mb after reloading all the tabs I expect it would jump back to 1Gb if I left it running for any length of time though. That said the other memory figures are still excessive even before reloading and such.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Eating lots of memory?
                    1) HTML/JS/CSS were designed with little more than humble web pages in mind.
                    2) JS requires 2-10 times more memory than C/C++, cause it's interpreted and cause it doesn't allow saving memory, like no types, any number is internally of type double (8 bytes) no matter what.
                    3) There's much back-n-forth stuff going behind the scenes, lots of images typically being scaled/cached.

                    The extensions/plugins do add up too.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X