this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
767 points (97.5% liked)

196

16745 readers
2252 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (4 children)

What is the acceptable amount of ram a browser should be using? Is there a way of knowing how much is “wasted”? Is it even possible to waste ram, like what is wasted, time? Electricity?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's only a problem if it doesn't give it up when other apps need it and there's not enough. Browsers just cache a bunch of shit in memory for speed and convenience, but they should unallocate it back to the pool if something else calls for it. The internet complaining about this for years and years are mostly doing so from a place of ignorance.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The issue is that browsers don't release much memory back to the system when it's needed. I wish they'd work more like the Linux kernel's VFS caching later, but they don't (and might not be able to. For example, I do don't think the Linux kernel has good APIs for such a use case).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

You can write limits to and then poll files in /proc/pressure/ to be notified of resource pressure. Systemd will also set an environment variable for similar files for your cgroup.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The issue is that browsers don't release much memory back to the system when it's needed. I wish they'd work more like the Linux kernel's VFS caching later, but they don't (and might not be able to. For example, I do don't think the Linux kernel has good APIs for such a use case).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It does release it back to the system. It only doesn't if you actively have a ton of windows/tabs open, in my experience. Even then, it'll cache stuff to disk after awhile. Like on my phone, I've easily had over 20 tabs open in Firefox (Android) and it doesn't suck up all of my phone's ram (which only has 12GB). If your system is running less than 16GB, then that's another matter and you really should add more, as 16GB is pretty much the baseline on computers these days.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Mine is 32GB and Firefox as consistently and repeatedly refused to release the excess RAM back into the pool. So it doesn't work out as well in practice as it does on paper. I would agree that 16GB is the bare minimum though and if you have less you absolutely should get more if you can. Firefox needs at least 8GB to run smoothly, but a system that only has that amount or less will be bogged down by Firefox alone.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I don't know what to tell you, then. I've never had Firefox or chrome be that stubborn on a consistent basis. Are you using extensions? Some extensions are very poorly optimized, especially so when combined with certain websites (gotta love badly implemented JS in some places). Even if the extension is well made, they can still get overwhelmed sometimes, e.g. ublock origin on sites with very aggressive ads.

That being said, browsers are very complicated and the fact they all heavily use sandboxing now (as they rightfully should be), I guess I'm not surprised where they don't function as intended in various use cases.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Even if the extension is well made, they can still get overwhelmed sometimes, e.g. ublock origin on sites with very aggressive ads.

Maybe that's part of the issue, I've seen uBO say it blocked 8K+ ads on certain sites.

That being said, browsers are very complicated and the fact they all heavily use sandboxing now (as they rightfully should be), I guess I’m not surprised where they don’t function as intended in various use cases.

Yeah that's very true, Browsers these days are becoming more like virtual machines. I guess it makes sense you wouldn't give all your RAM to them just like you wouldn't give all your computer's main RAM to a Windows VM.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm on 4gb of ram right now (travelling so I'm away from my desktop) and firefox is using ~2gb I think (only 4-6 tabs open though)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I guess with a small amount of tabs it can work better, but with 400 tabs and 12 extensions it definitely does struggle. When I first used the .desktop files to limit the ram I accidently set it at 1GB and everything started lagging and freezing in Firefox, it really didn't like it. At least I learned that the RAM limiting method I found really did work because of that.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Its being wasted if a memory leak causes it to use all 32 gigs of ram and crash

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Even if it doesn't eat that much if it latches on to a portion of Memory and won't give it up unless killed that's still bad, and would be considered wasted as nothing else can use it for anything.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Empty ram is wasted ram. In theory the system should use whatever is available to cache and streamline.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Somehow I don't really agree with that theory when Firefox was chomping down on 31.5GB of RAM and causing other things to crash or slow down (crashed Gnome shell a few times which was fun), as well as crashing often itself. When I limited the RAM to 8GB using the method outlined in my other comments all the mentioned issues went away. It would run smoothly, and old tabs would just unload, something which didn't happen before. And most of all, everything else ran smoothly without issues or hiccups.

Moral of the story, when apps leak RAM, limit their RAM. RAM held by apps and not being released is just as wasted as if it wasn't used at all, because chances are it isn't being used at all, and isn't able to be used.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

If an app allocates it and ever uses it and refuses to give it up unless killed that can be considered wasted. It's called a memory leak and they can be really bad, especially when they consume a lot of memory, as that memory might as well be empty but is being held hostage by other apps.

If they released RAM then whatever amount they were using wouldn't be wasted and if more is needed they'd simply release it to free up resources. That hasn't been happening though, and most modern Browsers are notorious for consuming massive quantities without releasing it back to the pool.

In that case with the presence of Memory leaks being considered, and the fact that they continue to not be fixed, the acceptable amount of RAM a browser should be using (should even have access to) is the minimum necessary to run smoothly. From my testing with Firefox that seems to be 8GB. 4GB caused many websites to struggle. Such an arrangement ensures that even if a Browser begins eating RAM it won't eat up all the RAM and cause issues, worst that'll happen is that it itself will crash from eating all the 8GB it was allowed to access.