NoOp wrote:
> On 05/15/2012 10:58 AM, chicagofan wrote:
>> NoOp wrote:
>>> On 05/14/2012 05:22 PM, Jean Zebloski wrote:
>>>> Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
>>> about:memory will show you all of the details.
>> What are "dirty" heaps? :)
>> bj
> You mean 'heap-dirty'?
> Hover your mouse over 'heap-dirty' and leave it there for a second; a
> definition/description should pop up and provide you the information.
> Note: you can do the same for any other item. Plus you can click on
> 'Verbose' for additional items under the Main Process trees.
NoOp wrote:
> On 05/15/2012 10:58 AM, chicagofan wrote:
>> NoOp wrote:
>>> On 05/14/2012 05:22 PM, Jean Zebloski wrote:
>>>> Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
>>> about:memory will show you all of the details.
>> What are "dirty" heaps? :)
>> bj
> You mean 'heap-dirty'?
> Hover your mouse over 'heap-dirty' and leave it there for a second; a
> definition/description should pop up and provide you the information.
> Note: you can do the same for any other item. Plus you can click on
> 'Verbose' for additional items under the Main Process trees.
> GerardJan wrote:
>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>>> Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open tab,
>>> isn't that WAY excessive?
>> good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj <urj...@bellsouth.net> wrote :
>> GerardJan wrote:
>>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>>>> Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open tab,
>>>> isn't that WAY excessive?
>>> good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
>>> sincerely,
>> Huh? 41megs >> 4Mbyte
> No, 41 megabytes per open tab.
> 12 tabs uses 440 megs, right?
[root@gershwin ~]# fdisk /dev/sda
Command (m for help): p
Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders, total 976773168 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x827c953a
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 2048 206847 102400 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda2 206848 97861631 48827392 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda3 97861632 98885631 512000 83 Linux
/dev/sda4 98885632 976773167 438943768 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 98887680 976773119 438942720 8e Linux LVM
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj<urj...@bellsouth.net> wrote :
>> GerardJan wrote:
>>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>>>> Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open tab,
>>>> isn't that WAY excessive?
>>> good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
>>> sincerely,
>> Huh? 41megs>> 4Mbyte
> No, 41 megabytes per open tab.
> 12 tabs uses 440 megs, right?
My calculator reports that 41 times 12 equals 492.
But if GerardJan has (only) 4Mbytes of physical memory,
how does he fit that 41 meg tab into it?
>>> GerardJan wrote:
>>>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>>>>> Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open tab,
>>>>> isn't that WAY excessive?
>>>> good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
>>>> sincerely,
>>> Huh? 41megs>> 4Mbyte
>> No, 41 megabytes per open tab.
>> 12 tabs uses 440 megs, right?
> My calculator reports that 41 times 12 equals 492.
> But if GerardJan has (only) 4Mbytes of physical memory,
> how does he fit that 41 meg tab into it?
Win 7 32-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 12 tabs open. 155,740 Kb of RAM used.
Ed Mullen wrote:
> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>>> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj<urj...@bellsouth.net> wrote :
>>>> GerardJan wrote:
>>>>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>>>>>> Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open
>>>>>> tab,
>>>>>> isn't that WAY excessive?
>>>>> good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
>>>>> sincerely,
>>>> Huh? 41megs>> 4Mbyte
>>> No, 41 megabytes per open tab.
>>> 12 tabs uses 440 megs, right?
>> My calculator reports that 41 times 12 equals 492.
>> But if GerardJan has (only) 4Mbytes of physical memory,
>> how does he fit that 41 meg tab into it?
> Win 7 32-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 12 tabs open. 155,740 Kb of RAM used.
What number on about:memory are you looking at?
Looking at the largest number I see - vsize - on my Mac installation, 2 tabs open, shows 3,860.13 MB. Which seems excessive to me...and that's with my cashe size set to zero.
Other than that, the number for "explicit" is 171.98 MB, which seems more reasonable.
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
> If he has only 4 MB of RAM, he's running a wristwatch, not a
> computer. He must've meant 4 GB.
4Mb is /massive/, man : the first computer on which
I worked had 8K ! (Clary 404, sequential architecture,
but a very powerful instruction set : one of my 3rd-
year students wrote a chess end-game solver in Clary
assembler).
Ed Mullen wrote:
> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>>> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj<urj...@bellsouth.net> wrote :
>>>> GerardJan wrote:
>>>>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>>>>>> Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open tab,
>>>>>> isn't that WAY excessive?
>>>>> good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
>>>>> sincerely,
>>>> Huh? 41megs>> 4Mbyte
>>> No, 41 megabytes per open tab.
>>> 12 tabs uses 440 megs, right?
>> My calculator reports that 41 times 12 equals 492.
>> But if GerardJan has (only) 4Mbytes of physical memory,
>> how does he fit that 41 meg tab into it?
> Win 7 32-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 12 tabs open. 155,740 Kb of RAM used.
Now you're trying to confuse me :)
GerardJan wrote 4Mbytes. You write 4Gb Ram!
12 x 41 = 492 megs. But you write that 12 tabs use 155,740 Kb of RAM!
Are you discussing the same case Ed?
Rufus wrote:
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
>>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>>>> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj<urj...@bellsouth.net> wrote :
>>>>> GerardJan wrote:
>>>>>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>>>>>>> Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open
>>>>>>> tab,
>>>>>>> isn't that WAY excessive?
>>>>>> good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
>>>>>> sincerely,
>>>>> Huh? 41megs>> 4Mbyte
>>>> No, 41 megabytes per open tab.
>>>> 12 tabs uses 440 megs, right?
>>> My calculator reports that 41 times 12 equals 492.
>>> But if GerardJan has (only) 4Mbytes of physical memory,
>>> how does he fit that 41 meg tab into it?
>> Win 7 32-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 12 tabs open. 155,740 Kb of RAM used.
> What number on about:memory are you looking at?
I'm not, I'm looking at Windows Task Manager.
If I have a chance I'll try about:memory and let you know.
-- Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/ The hilarious thing about self-important self-righteous people is that they are so easily baited.
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
>>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>>>> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj<urj...@bellsouth.net> wrote :
>>>>> GerardJan wrote:
>>>>>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>>>>>>> Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open
>>>>>>> tab,
>>>>>>> isn't that WAY excessive?
>>>>>> good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
>>>>>> sincerely,
>>>>> Huh? 41megs>> 4Mbyte
>>>> No, 41 megabytes per open tab.
>>>> 12 tabs uses 440 megs, right?
>>> My calculator reports that 41 times 12 equals 492.
>>> But if GerardJan has (only) 4Mbytes of physical memory,
>>> how does he fit that 41 meg tab into it?
>> Win 7 32-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 12 tabs open. 155,740 Kb of RAM used.
> Now you're trying to confuse me :)
> GerardJan wrote 4Mbytes. You write 4Gb Ram!
> 12 x 41 = 492 megs. But you write that 12 tabs use 155,740 Kb of RAM!
> Are you discussing the same case Ed?
Gerard had to have mis-typed. No modern PC has anything less than 512 Mb to 1 Gb of RAM.
My PC (one of five) has 4 GIGA-bytes of RAM.
-- Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/ 42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Ed Mullen wrote:
> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
>>>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>>>>> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj<urj...@bellsouth.net> wrote :
>>>>>> GerardJan wrote:
>>>>>>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>>>>>>>> Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open
>>>>>>>> tab,
>>>>>>>> isn't that WAY excessive?
>>>>>>> good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
>>>>>> Huh? 41megs>> 4Mbyte
>>>>> No, 41 megabytes per open tab.
>>>>> 12 tabs uses 440 megs, right?
>>>> My calculator reports that 41 times 12 equals 492.
>>>> But if GerardJan has (only) 4Mbytes of physical memory, how does he
>>>> fit that 41 meg tab into it?
>>> Win 7 32-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 12 tabs open. 155,740 Kb of RAM used.
>> Now you're trying to confuse me :)
>> GerardJan wrote 4Mbytes. You write 4Gb Ram! 12 x 41 = 492 megs. But you
>> write that 12 tabs use 155,740 Kb of RAM! Are you discussing the same
>> case Ed?
> Gerard had to have mis-typed. No modern PC has anything less than 512
> Mb to 1 Gb of RAM.
GerardJan frequently does. He has also freely admitted that he occasionally forgets his medication. ;-)
> My PC (one of five) has 4 GIGA-bytes of RAM.
..as does mine.
I just started a fresh SeaMonkey 2.8 (Linux), opened 12 tabs (each with my local start page) and it is using a total of 44.56 MB of RAM. Another fresh start with just a single tab uses 39.81 MB.
I don't remember if anyone mentioned exactly *what* pages were open in all their tabs, which could make a huge difference in everyone's readings.
-- -bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
Jean Zebloski wrote:
> Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
Because it makes ineficient use of cache, but works toward that has been initiated and they say will continue to improve over time, for now he have to settle for a FAT SEAMONKEY, that's getting thiner VERY SLOWLY.
INstead why don't you ask yourself: "am I making stupid assumptions based on information I recollected myself as true?" How can you assume a PC would have 4MB of RAM? not even a Cell phone has that little, if you don't know anything about computers I'd suggest to shut up and inform yourself before writing anything else.
