Opera uses 61 megs of memory ?!
Johan
I've been an opera user for ages. There is a opera.ini switch that I use
at home to disable all the email/newsgroup features so Opera do not load
those addins. In browser only mode its quick.
I didnt disable this at work and noticed a 61mb Memory footprint from
Opera? Can this be for real? No wonder it takes forever to start up?!
Not even ALL the Office apps (Excell, ACCESS, word outlook)loaded together
uses that much!
Has anyone else noticed this?
Regards
Johan
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Shokuji
other browsers. Techinically smaller than IE (though they use a bunch
of DLL files that window's already use) and last I checked smaller than
Firefox. And I think it's even smaller than Netscape. But don't forget
that's with all the options turned on, and the others are with hardly
anything turned on. Believe me, it's not as bad as you think.
Johan
61 Megs is HUGE did you see all the office programs - thats a huge word
processor, Huge datase handler email and all does not use that much
together!
Whats it doing?!
--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
> Hi
>
> 61 Megs is HUGE did you see all the office programs - thats a huge word
> processor, Huge datase handler email and all does not use that much
> together!
>
> Whats it doing?!
Please give some more details on your system (for example Windows version,
available RAM). Opera uses more memory when more is available, if it can
be used for good purposes. For example, when you load lots of pages and/or
pages with lots of images and/or plugins or java applets etc.
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:45:57 +0200, Shokuji <sho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've noticed that the footprint is a little high, but it's smaller than
>> other browsers. Techinically smaller than IE (though they use a bunch
>> of DLL files that window's already use) and last I checked smaller than
>> Firefox. And I think it's even smaller than Netscape. But don't forget
>> that's with all the options turned on, and the others are with hardly
>> anything turned on. Believe me, it's not as bad as you think.
>>
>
>
>
--
Get Opera 8 now! Speed, Security and Simplicity.
http://my.opera.com/Rijk/affiliate/
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
Opera Software ASA, Documentation & QA
Tweak: http://my.opera.com/Rijk/blog/
Brixomatic
> I didnt disable this at work and noticed a 61mb Memory footprint from
> Opera? Can this be for real? No wonder it takes forever to start up?!
So you bought 4 Gigs of RAM and you love to see it idling around on your
computer, Congratulations, you've understood what RAM is for: Having a
lot of it in spare, just in case..
Greets,
-Wanja-
--
"Gewisse Schriftsteller sagen von ihren Werken immer: 'Mein Buch, mein
Kommentar, meine Geschichte'. [..] Es wäre besser, wenn sie sagten:
'unser Buch, unser Kommentar, unsere Geschichte'; wenn man bedenkt, dass
das Gute darin mehr von anderen ist als von ihnen." [Blaise Pascal]
exclipy
>> processor, Huge datase handler email and all does not use that much
>> together!
>>
>> Whats it doing?!
>
> Please give some more details on your system (for example Windows
> version, available RAM). Opera uses more memory when more is available,
> if it can be used for good purposes. For example, when you load lots of
> pages and/or pages with lots of images and/or plugins or java applets
> etc.
I'd also like to know how to keep the memory use down. My brother is
using Opera with 192MB RAM on WinXP and always complains that Opera uses
50MB of RAM on clean start and up to 90MB after some use. The Memory
Cache option in the Preferences seems to have little effect. He does use
it quite a lot, but he keeps telling me that Maxthon would use a fraction
of that.
Brixomatic: Well some people do buy 4GB of RAM so they always have heaps
to spare, so that opening new applications don't require the OS to write
everything to swap. Personally, my OS (Linux) uses "free" RAM quite
productively by caching the hard drive contents to it. It'd be good if
the option to limit memory use would work.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Johan
Again I have to point your attention to the Office apps being probably the
most powerful word processor, spreadsheet system and one of the best
database systems out there and their combined footprint (4 apps with
outlook!) doesnt come close to Opera's usage.
My work PC has 256mb ram 2GHZ CPU. So Opera hoggs about a quarter after
the OS loads. This is makes swapping slow, but the main problem becomes
the startup. It takes 30+ seconds to load!
I go and get coffee agter launing Opera. Open the task manager next time
and check for the Opera process starting .... 5 mb ... 10 ...17 ... 30
............ 57.... 60 .. copied in memory and bam the app appears.
Wel it could use 100 megs for all I care - I like Opera allot but for what
its using ... its not doing half all the Office apps combined are using!
I mean Outlook 2000 is on 10 mb with allot more routines.
Regards
Johan
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Matthew Winn
> Brixomatic: Well some people do buy 4GB of RAM so they always have heaps
> to spare, so that opening new applications don't require the OS to write
> everything to swap.
The OS shouldn't have to do that anyway. When an application first
loads it only gets as much memory as it needs. As it asks for more
the OS will swap out individual pages that haven't been used recently.
It shouldn't ever get into a state where it has to swap out an entire
application before it'll load another one. (At least, not on modern
systems it shouldn't. I do remember a version of Unix back in the
1980s where all paging was on a process by process basis so swapping
was an all-or-nothing affair.)
> Personally, my OS (Linux) uses "free" RAM quite
> productively by caching the hard drive contents to it.
That's what Opera's doing too: caching things in memory instead of
on disk. The only difference is that it's doing it itself instead
of relying on the OS to do the job
> It'd be good if the option to limit memory use would work.
Agreed. However, on machines where memory is really tight it works
well enough. Try setting the memory cache to 4MB on a 16MB machine
and it'll work just fine. I get the impression that Opera overlooks
some of its memory use, so a smaller cache setting will result in
lower memory use but probably not as low as you expect. It's more of
a suck-it-and-see process than an I-have-this-much-memory-to-spare
one.
--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by email remove the "r" from "urk"]
Spartanicus
>Brixomatic: Well some people do buy 4GB of RAM so they always have heaps
>to spare, so that opening new applications don't require the OS to write
>everything to swap.
Opera can use a lot of memory when it's freely available, afaik if
another application subsequently requests memory Opera releases RAM that
Opera is only using to speed the application up.
I run Opera on a PII/266MHz with 128Mb RAM using W98, if it really
needed the huge amounts of memory that people with large amounts of RAM
are seeing then it would be dead slow on my system. It isn't, I can open
Opera with plenty of windows and have quite a few other big applications
open at the same time without it slowing the system down due to swap
file usage.
Having said that, the speed gain from using huge amounts of memory imo
isn't typically noticeable. But a lot of people including myself
instinctively judge the efficiency of an application by it's memory
footprint. Opera's huge memory footprint on systems with lot's of memory
is hurting it's reputation.
I don't use M2 myself, so I could be mistaken, but my impression from
reading here is that M2 is a resource hog that is also hurting Opera's
reputation for being fast and having a low resource usage.
M2 may use an evolutionary viewing system, but afaics as a direct
consequence of that it turns Opera into a pig of an application.
--
Spartanicus
Brixomatic
> I go and get coffee agter launing Opera. Open the task manager next time
> and check for the Opera process starting .... 5 mb ... 10 ...17 ... 30
> ............ 57.... 60 .. copied in memory and bam the app appears.
My PC is equipped with 512 MB of RAM at the moment and running Windows
2000 professional SP 4, patches are up-to-date. It has a Athlon XP 2400+
CPU running at factory clockrate, my GFX-adapter is an old Nvidia
GeForce 2 Titanium.
I have seperated admin- and user- accounts and set my virus-scanner to
scan on demand only.
Instead of installing a hopeless personal firewall-software, I took the
strategy of disabling the dangerous services ( http://www.dingens.org )
and using Windows' built in ip-filtering, having only Port 53 (dns) and
Port 113 (ident) open to incoming connections.
Now here's what I did to double-check your experience:
Opera is set to have automatic RAM-cache and 40 megs of disc-cache.
Javascript and plugins are enabled, Java 1.6 beta (mustang) build 59 is
installed an ready to go with Opera anytime Opera needs it.
The disc-cache, history and visited links have just been cleared before
shutting down Opera.
Before starting up Opera once again, the Taskmanager reports an overall
RAM-usage of 224.800 KB of RAM, and a system load of about 0-2% (depends
whether I move the mouse). I have several applications open.
Now I doubleclick my Opera-icon on the desktop.
Starting Opera takes hardly 2 seconds, I'd rather say it' 1.5 seconds.
Opera automatically restores the tabs I left open when shutting down,
which is a view of my unread filter with 185 mails in it, previewing one
mail of 32 KB having a JPEG-Attachment (which is also visible).
Apart from the mails in my unread-filter, I've got a few thousands of
other mails in my store.
The Taskmanager says Opera uses 23.592 KB of RAM at the moment.
So I don't know what you guys are doing over there, but I certainly
would check your system if I were you, because something seems to be
very, very wrong with your systems.
Brixomatic
> But a lot of people including myself
> instinctively judge the efficiency of an application by it's memory
> footprint. Opera's huge memory footprint on systems with lot's of memory
> is hurting it's reputation.
Those people who say that big memory footprint indicates bad performance
usually simply don't have clue how, for example, "open hashing" works.
If they knew algorithms like that, they would _not_ couple "using much
memory" with "slow applications", because some algorithms go fast only
_because_ they waste memory.
Richard Grevers
wrote:
> I don't use M2 myself, so I could be mistaken, but my impression from
> reading here is that M2 is a resource hog that is also hurting Opera's
> reputation for being fast and having a low resource usage.
>
I made a backup copy of a Eudora accounts email system with just over a
million emails into Opera. At that scale, M2 seemed to be outperforming
Eudora in every aspect - RAM, startup speed, performance, and especially
search.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Take it easy
news:ri7cs156jp5nsjf8u...@news.spartanicus.utvinternet.
ie:
> exclipy <exc...@g.mail> wrote:
>
>>Brixomatic: Well some people do buy 4GB of RAM so they always have
>>heaps to spare, so that opening new applications don't require
>>the OS to write everything to swap.
>
> Opera can use a lot of memory when it's freely available, afaik if
> another application subsequently requests memory Opera releases
> RAM that Opera is only using to speed the application up.
I hope you are not telling thats how Opera works literally. I mean,
does Opera actively manages the RAM? How does it know other
applications requests memory?
I think you meant conceptually thats what happens. Opera occupies
some virtual memory which might be too big to be in the RAM. Later
when another application requests for RAM, the Operating system (not
Opera) swaps some parts of Opera from RAM to disk and gives it to the
other application (sorry for stating some obvious basics).
So if my understanding is correct, Opera has no control on the RAM
but only on Virtual memory (which is the correct method IMHO). It
lets its size expand to some fraction of the total virtual memory
space (not RAM). Now this could be big enough to cause the OS to swap
in and out which can make applications to run slow (and it actually
happens to me).
> I run Opera on a PII/266MHz with 128Mb RAM using W98, if it really
> needed the huge amounts of memory that people with large amounts
> of RAM are seeing then it would be dead slow on my system. It
> isn't, I can open Opera with plenty of windows and have quite a
> few other big applications open at the same time without it
> slowing the system down due to swap file usage.
>
> Having said that, the speed gain from using huge amounts of memory
> imo isn't typically noticeable. But a lot of people including
> myself instinctively judge the efficiency of an application by
> it's memory footprint. Opera's huge memory footprint on systems
> with lot's of memory is hurting it's reputation.
In my case the slow down is visible. Actually Opera starts fine for
me even with 10-20 pages. Reasonable memory size. As I use it its
size grows (which I believe is due to the history and fast forward
backward navigation). It grows really big (probably targetting the
fraction of the virtual memory). Now when I had 512M ram, the virtual
memory becomes 700/900 M and the slow down happens. Every time I
switch applications, disk activity is too much and response is very
slow.
Now I quit Opera (which takes lots of time) and start again it is
back to normal again. Two problems, I don't want to quit because I
might have some open forms or session based pages. And another is
that more disk activity while closing leading to long delay while
closing.
Thats why I requested a way to cleanup the memory internally by Opera
(like forgetting some amount of history, etc) so that I don't need to
restart.
Takeiteasy.
Take it easy
news:MPG.1e3070f9...@news.opera.com:
> inv...@invalid.invalid said...
>
>> But a lot of people including myself
>> instinctively judge the efficiency of an application by it's
>> memory footprint. Opera's huge memory footprint on systems with
>> lot's of memory is hurting it's reputation.
>
> Those people who say that big memory footprint indicates bad
> performance usually simply don't have clue how, for example, "open
> hashing" works.
Probably the clue is slow response from both Opera and other
applications, excessive disk activity, etc. Close Opera and start again
fast response. And after a while of browsing the cycle repeats.
> If they knew algorithms like that, they would _not_ couple "using
much memory" with "slow applications", because
> some algorithms go fast only _because_ they waste memory.
Bigger foot print in the RAM definitely can increase the speed. In the
virtual memory it doesn't necessarily.
Takeiteasy.
>
> Greets,
> -Wanja-
>
>
John H Meyers
> Now I quit Opera (which takes lots of time) and start again
> it is back to normal again.
In the History preferences, how much memory and disk cache
have you specified?
What happens if, instead of quitting and restarting,
you use Tools > "Delete private data" to delete entire cache?
(click the "Advanced" option to choose only cache deletion,
leaving cookies and history, etc., as you wish).
-[ ]-
Johan
The problem is we have half the amount of ram you do and Opera is hogging
it all.
Just to dismiss everyone's claims that its caches and browser features
that are needed to "increase speed" thats responsible for Opera's 60 mb
footprint:
I have 1 gig ram at home and DISABLED the email/newsgroup/irc modules and
run Opera in Browser mode: - the Opera footprint is 19.5 megs with no
pages loaded.
So thats 40 megs bloatware in the email/irc features.
For interest's sake ... on my 256 mb ram PC at Explorer uses 11,7 mb ram -
at home - 1 gig ram: its up to 65 mb used.
I reiterate that Microsoft Office (All 4 apps together) is known
bloatware: and all this combined - loaded at once ... we're talking ACCESS
WORD OUTLOOK EXCEL uses less than Opera.
Regards
Johan
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:47:45 +0200, Brixomatic <brixo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
--
Spartanicus
>For interest's sake ... on my 256 mb ram PC at Explorer uses 11,7 mb ram -
>at home - 1 gig ram: its up to 65 mb used.
IE uses much more, but because a large part of it is "part of the OS",
you are only seeing the memory footprint of the web browser "extension"
itself. Much of IE's functionality is provided by the OS core.
>I reiterate that Microsoft Office (All 4 apps together) is known
>bloatware: and all this combined - loaded at once ... we're talking ACCESS
>WORD OUTLOOK EXCEL uses less than Opera.
I wouldn't trust your observation regarding the memory usage of MS apps
one bit.
--
Spartanicus
Spartanicus
>In my case the slow down is visible. Actually Opera starts fine for
>me even with 10-20 pages. Reasonable memory size. As I use it its
>size grows (which I believe is due to the history and fast forward
>backward navigation). It grows really big (probably targetting the
>fraction of the virtual memory). Now when I had 512M ram, the virtual
>memory becomes 700/900 M and the slow down happens. Every time I
>switch applications, disk activity is too much and response is very
>slow.
>
>Now I quit Opera (which takes lots of time) and start again it is
>back to normal again. Two problems, I don't want to quit because I
>might have some open forms or session based pages. And another is
>that more disk activity while closing leading to long delay while
>closing.
Others have reported this as well.
Do you use M2 (mail, news, IRC, RSS)?
From other reports here I get the impression that Opera is very slow in
managing any sort of large index, whether it is history, cache or mail
indexes.
I've limited my history to 100, my cache to 10MB (deleted on exit), and
as I said I don't use any M2 functions. Memory cache however is set to
"automatic", I don't have the growing memory usage that you and others
are reporting.
--
Spartanicus
news
<joha...@remove.this.bit.mailcan.com> writes
>I have 1 gig ram at home and DISABLED the email/newsgroup/irc modules
How do you disable these functions?
--
Ian
Johan
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:52:02 +0200, Spartanicus <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
--
Spartanicus
>>> I reiterate that Microsoft Office (All 4 apps together) is known
>>> bloatware: and all this combined - loaded at once ... we're talking
>>> ACCESS
>>> WORD OUTLOOK EXCEL uses less than Opera.
>>
>> I wouldn't trust your observation regarding the memory usage of MS apps
>> one bit.
>Launch them and look bud (dont blink)
I don't allow any of those apps on my system, again look at IE for an
example of how wrong cursory observations about startup time and memory
usage can be.
--
Spartanicus
Johan
Whoo hoo great news: I set the disk cache to 10mb and memory to 4mb ...
footprint now 18 mb (3 sec startup) no more waiting a minute with 60+ megs
mem usage!
For my work PC I dont want too much cached anyhow.
By the way .. for those who are not aware of how to disable the M2 module
- if you use alternative news/RSS/Email clients, its done by adding:
Show E-mail Client=0
in opera.ini under the user preferences heading. Doing this will allow
you to save another 8 mb ram and gets Opera down to 10 mb. Not bad at all.
Speed is good
Over and out
Johan
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:12:27 +0200, Spartanicus <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
--
Mark V
>
> Whoo hoo great news: I set the disk cache to 10mb and memory to
> 4mb ... footprint now 18 mb (3 sec startup) no more waiting a
> minute with 60+ megs mem usage!
>
> For my work PC I dont want too much cached anyhow.
>
> By the way .. for those who are not aware of how to disable the
> M2 module - if you use alternative news/RSS/Email clients, its
> done by adding:
>
> Show E-mail Client=0
That setting is only for Opera 7.23 and somewhat earlier. FYI
[ ]
Philip J. Koenig
in article <op.s292fie1igav4j@richardg>,
newsr...@dramatic.co.nz (Richard Grevers) writes...
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 22:17:17 +1300, Spartanicus <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > I don't use M2 myself, so I could be mistaken, but my impression from
> > reading here is that M2 is a resource hog that is also hurting Opera's
> > reputation for being fast and having a low resource usage.
> >
> I made a backup copy of a Eudora accounts email system with just over a
> million emails into Opera. At that scale, M2 seemed to be outperforming
> Eudora in every aspect - RAM, startup speed, performance, and especially
> search.
As in, 1,000,000 separate email messages in a single user/
identity's mail store?
Good grief, man. How does a single individual collect so
many messages unless it is 90% spam that never got removed,
or they are subscribed to dozens of email lists for years,
receive every message individually and never purge them?
--
* Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which *
* differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are *
* even incapable of forming such opinions. -- Albert Einstein *
* *
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces: pjkusenet64 @ ekahuna27 . com *
* Simple answers are for simple minds. Try a new way of looking at things. *
Philip J. Koenig
in article <dq9a6f$hb8$1...@news.opera.com>,
notv...@nul.invalid (Mark V) writes...
It works on the newer versions. I don't know what it actually
does under the hood, or how much memory it saves, but it does
block access to the email functions if you use it.
Mark V
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:39:12 -0500,
> in article <dq9a6f$hb8$1...@news.opera.com>,
> notv...@nul.invalid (Mark V) writes...
>> In opera.general Johan wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Whoo hoo great news: I set the disk cache to 10mb and memory
[ ]
>> > done by adding:
>> >
>> > Show E-mail Client=0
>>
>> That setting is only for Opera 7.23 and somewhat earlier. FYI
>> [ ]
>
>
> It works on the newer versions. I don't know what it actually
> does under the hood, or how much memory it saves, but it does
> block access to the email functions if you use it.
You are saying, it sounds like, that this is different or more
effective (memory) than just having not setup either any email or
news accounts in 8.x and up versions. If so, that is news to me
and coflicts (as I recall it) with OS statements made previously.
I have no doubts at all that it blocks email/news usage though. <G>
I could be wrong of course and would like to here something
"official" or see a demonstrable results. I will try it (8.51)
when time permits.
Philip J. Koenig
in article <dq9gv5$2dd$1...@news.opera.com>,
I should point out that I have never personally used Opera
email functionality, as I don't consider M2 to be nearly
sophisticated enough for my needs, and I have never liked
the idea of using a browser for both functions. (partly
due to the fact that browser vendors tend to be way too
HTML-centric when they design an email app - I consider
HTML email to be pretty evil - and because I'm not
particularly enamored of the single point of failure.)
Like I said, I have no idea how it impacts memory usage,
my main interest in the feature has been thinking about
deploying Opera at sites where I don't want users to be
using the email functions for security and other reasons.
(luckily most of the users aren't savvy enough to research
how simple it would be to turn email functions back on :-)
Brixomatic
> reHi Brix
>
> The problem is we have half the amount of ram you do and Opera is hogging
> it all.
Then why is it, that Opera only chewed 24 megs after startup on my
machine and 60 at your place?
Now, here's a shock for you:
http://www.plush.de/brix/files/screenshot.png
Look at the marked line in the taskmanager and the amount of tabs I have
opened. (As I don't want to expose my system too much, I obscured some
icons and processes)
On case you wonder about the not loaded images in the upper left corner
of the "f1total.com"-page: I'm blocking ads with a proxyconfig.pac-file
and a blackhole-proxy.
As I already said: check your system!
Brixomatic
> From other reports here I get the impression that Opera is very slow in
> managing any sort of large index, whether it is history, cache or mail
> indexes.
As I remember Opera was also suspected to have a slow-startup-problem,
when a large number of fonts were installed (my startup is very fast and
I've got 71 fonts installed, so I ask myself when a "large number of
fonts" is).
Anyway, I would have a look at my virus scanner first, before pointing
my finger at Opera.
Every application that has to open a lot of files (and large disc-caches
mean that there _are_ a large number of files) will suffer from a big
virus-scan overhead.
So IMO the best practice is to set up a fresh system with seperate admin
and user accounts, only work as a user, install and alter system
settings as admin only, virus-scan on demand only (before executing or
installing something new), doing a weekly complete system scan to detect
things that may have hit your system anyway.
Why scan weekly? Because one frequently wants to know if he/she has to
do this:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/secmgmt/sm0504.mspx
Antonio Remedios
wrote:
> As I remember Opera was also suspected to have a slow-startup-problem,
> when a large number of fonts were installed (my startup is very fast and
> I've got 71 fonts installed, so I ask myself when a "large number of
> fonts" is).
From a completely irrelevant problem
(http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/328717.html),
If you have more than 1000 fonts installed, try reducing the number of
fonts. If you require a large number of fonts, consider using font
management software that lets you dynamically load and unload fonts from
memory.
So. 71 isn't large at all :)
--
Ant :)
Brixomatic
> > Those people who say that big memory footprint indicates bad
> > performance usually simply don't have clue how, for example, "open
> > hashing" works.
>
> Probably the clue is slow response from both Opera and other
> applications, excessive disk activity, etc. Close Opera and start again
> fast response. And after a while of browsing the cycle repeats.
>
> > If they knew algorithms like that, they would _not_ couple "using
> much memory" with "slow applications", because
> > some algorithms go fast only _because_ they waste memory.
>
> Bigger foot print in the RAM definitely can increase the speed. In the
> virtual memory it doesn't necessarily.
Hardly used pages get swapped out, this also means, that even if Opera
asked for 2 gigs of RAM from the OS, the unused pages of these 2 GB
would be paged out as soon as another app needs real RAM.
If your machine is constantly swapping you should have an eye on the
sheer number of applications that are constantly actively doing
something in the background.
As there are virus-scanners, personal firewalls (useless anyway),
Windows' indexing service, spyware like alexa, gain or cydoor,
Quickstart or Autolaunch-icons for Apps like Open Office, Quicktime,
Nero, Mozilla, etc..
If your system is constantly riding the harddrive:
Disable realtime-virus-scanning and scan your full systrem daily or
weekly (just as you like) instead and scan incoming files one time,
befor you use them.
If you sytstem is constantly torturing your swapfile: first thing to do
is: clean it up! Begin with cleaning up the tray and the autostarts.
It's usually not a few applications that ask for a lot of RAM, but only
use parts of it, it's rather a large number of small applications
constanlty doing something with their rather small amounts RAM that's
putting your system under stress.
Ah, and you should try to fix the size of your swapfile to a good size,
because if you don't fix the swapfile's size, the file gets recreated
all the time it has to be resized. If it's fixed size, it just gets
modified, which is faster.
Mark V
All above are my sentiments exactly. :)
(but I won't beg any more for a "browser only" build)
> Like I said, I have no idea how it impacts memory usage,
> my main interest in the feature has been thinking about
> deploying Opera at sites where I don't want users to be
> using the email functions for security and other reasons.
> (luckily most of the users aren't savvy enough to research
> how simple it would be to turn email functions back on :-)
You could use an administrative opera6.ini assuming NTFS ACLs or
other means to prevent tampering with the file.
http://www.opera.com/support/mastering/sysadmin/
Frank
<See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
> (partly
> due to the fact that browser vendors tend to be way too
> HTML-centric when they design an email app - I consider
> HTML email to be pretty evil - and because I'm not
> particularly enamored of the single point of failure.)
Gosh.
M2 defaults to text only.
--
Blogging at http://frankwbell.no-ip.info/weblog
Updates daily. Worthwhile updates occasionally.
Slackware (http://www.slackware.com) and Opera (http:www.opera.com): the
ultimate internet experience.
fwb2355 is a spam trap. Email frankwbell at comcast dot net.
Ted S.
news:MPG.1e330cbd7...@news.opera.com:
> (As I don't want to expose my system too much, I obscured some
> icons and processes)
Yeah, you don't want us to know how much porn you're downloading. :-p
--
Ted <fedya at bestweb dot net>
Oh Marge, anyone can miss Canada, all tucked away down there....
--Homer Simpson
Brixomatic
> > (As I don't want to expose my system too much, I obscured some
> > icons and processes)
>
> Yeah, you don't want us to know how much porn you're downloading. :-p
Legend says that Rolls Royce doesn't tell the power of their cars
either, it says they just tell it's "sufficient".
:-)
if
news:MPG.1e3270f27...@corp.supernews.com:
>> >> > Show E-mail Client=0
>> >>
>> >> That setting is only for Opera 7.23 and somewhat earlier. FYI [ ]
>> >
>> >
>> > It works on the newer versions. I don't know what it actually
>> > does under the hood, or how much memory it saves, but it does block
>> > access to the email functions if you use it.
Although the "show e-mail client = 0" option does grey out the email menu
option I don't find it makes a significant difference to the memory
footprint or startup time.
Opera memory allocation according to Wintop, freshly loaded with no pages
and empty disk cache shows only a 2% saving:
show email off:
Code: 2168K, Data: 12280K
show email on:
Code: 2168K, Data: 12672K
If you find Opera slow to load, it may be worth clearing the disk cache on
exit and keep history short.
--
See other side for details.
Philip J. Koenig
in article <dqb3sg$265$1...@news.opera.com>,
The problem with using non-writable-by-user configuration
files is that you either cripple the user's ability to
customize the app, and/or you end up having to do a lot
more babysitting because various things can't be done
by the user any more and they have to wait for you to
make minor changes.
Better IMHO would simply be a way to install the app so
that those functions are truly unavailable. Netscape
and Mozilla for many years could be installed this way.
Philip J. Koenig
in article <op.s3fl30l9h99ycw@dell_lap.gobigwest.com>,
fwb...@aim.com (Frank) writes...
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 10:23:17 -0000, Philip J. Koenig
> <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > (partly
> > due to the fact that browser vendors tend to be way too
> > HTML-centric when they design an email app - I consider
> > HTML email to be pretty evil - and because I'm not
> > particularly enamored of the single point of failure.)
>
> Gosh.
>
> M2 defaults to text only.
I manage various business sites and much of my criteria revolves
around how I will deploy an app to users.
Unfortunately if there is functionality there, users will
turn it on, especially with things like HTML messages
because they think it's "cool", and because they probably
do this at home.
Haavard Kvam Moen
<joha...@remove.this.bit.mailcan.com> wrote:
...
> I have 1 gig ram at home and DISABLED the email/newsgroup/irc modules and
> run Opera in Browser mode: - the Opera footprint is 19.5 megs with no
> pages loaded.
>
> So thats 40 megs bloatware in the email/irc features.
Actually, the e-mail client doesn't really make a difference unless
you actually use it. Until an account is actually created it's
hidden/deactivated. Those 40 MBs came from somewhere else, I'd guess.
Mark V
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 10:03:45 -0500,
> in article <dqb3sg$265$1...@news.opera.com>,
> notv...@nul.invalid (Mark V) writes...
>> In opera.general Philip J. Koenig wrote:
>>
>> > Like I said, I have no idea how it impacts memory usage,
>> > my main interest in the feature has been thinking about
>> > deploying Opera at sites where I don't want users to be
>> > using the email functions for security and other reasons.
>> > (luckily most of the users aren't savvy enough to research
>> > how simple it would be to turn email functions back on :-)
>>
>> You could use an administrative opera6.ini assuming NTFS ACLs or
>> other means to prevent tampering with the file.
>> http://www.opera.com/support/mastering/sysadmin/
>
>
> The problem with using non-writable-by-user configuration
> files is that you either cripple the user's ability to
> customize the app, and/or you end up having to do a lot
> more babysitting because various things can't be done
> by the user any more and they have to wait for you to
> make minor changes.
I cannot argue with that as a general principle, but know that such
an opera6.ini file only overrides the administrator's specifically
include options, not all options/setings.
> Better IMHO would simply be a way to install the app so
> that those functions are truly unavailable. Netscape
> and Mozilla for many years could be installed this way.
--
(Opera Win32 8.51 7712 (registered); W2K, SP4; ADSL; Sun JRE 1.4.2_
08) [ and Opera 9.x P1-8031 ]
Take it easy
news:MPG.1e331de55...@news.opera.com:
> takei...@nospam.com said...
>
>> > Those people who say that big memory footprint indicates bad
>> > performance usually simply don't have clue how, for example,
>> > "open hashing" works.
>>
>> Probably the clue is slow response from both Opera and other
>> applications, excessive disk activity, etc. Close Opera and start
>> again
>
>> fast response. And after a while of browsing the cycle repeats.
>>
>> > If they knew algorithms like that, they would _not_ couple
>> > "using much memory" with "slow applications", because some
>> > algorithms go fast only _because_ they waste memory.
>>
>> Bigger foot print in the RAM definitely can increase the speed.
>> In the virtual memory it doesn't necessarily.
>
> Hardly used pages get swapped out, this also means, that even if
> Opera asked for 2 gigs of RAM from the OS, the unused pages of
> these 2 GB would be paged out as soon as another app needs real
> RAM.
There is a possibility that Opera accesses various parts of the
memory constantly thus pages need to be brought in to RAM. I am not
saying it happens, but it is a possibility.
> If your machine is constantly swapping you should have an eye on
> the sheer number of applications that are constantly actively
> doing something in the background.
When I exit Opera system is not that slow any more. Less thrashing
quicker response time.
> As there are virus-scanners, personal firewalls (useless anyway),
> Windows' indexing service, spyware like alexa, gain or cydoor,
> Quickstart or Autolaunch-icons for Apps like Open Office,
> Quicktime, Nero, Mozilla, etc..
>
> If your system is constantly riding the harddrive:
> Disable realtime-virus-scanning and scan your full systrem daily
> or weekly (just as you like) instead and scan incoming files one
> time, befor you use them.
Again why the constant thrashing when Opera is holding huge virtual
memory and not otherwise?
> If you sytstem is constantly torturing your swapfile: first thing
> to do is: clean it up!
Done. Problem occured in atleast three different installations (two
different PCs and one of them twice installed).
> Begin with cleaning up the tray and the autostarts. It's usually
not a few applications that ask for a lot
> of RAM, but only use parts of it, it's rather a large number of
> small applications constanlty doing something with their rather
> small amounts RAM that's putting your system under stress.
Again only Opera is making the difference.
> Ah, and you should try to fix the size of your swapfile to a good
> size, because if you don't fix the swapfile's size, the file gets
> recreated all the time it has to be resized. If it's fixed size,
> it just gets modified, which is faster.
It should not be a problem in my case since the swap file is big
enough and the maximum virtual memory didn't exceed its limit.
Takeiteasy.
>
> Greets,
> -Wanja-
>
exclipy
>> the sheer number of applications that are constantly actively
>> doing something in the background.
>
> When I exit Opera system is not that slow any more. Less thrashing
> quicker response time.
I can confirm this. Opera seems to gradually build up a big footprint as
it gets used, and restarting it periodically frees things up a lot. (and
yes, the effect on other applications is very noticable).
I haven't tried the heavy duty Delete Private Data options, but doing
things like clearing the closed window list and the Back histories don't
help with the memory foot print.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Frank
<See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:10:38 -0000,
> in article <op.s3fl30l9h99ycw@dell_lap.gobigwest.com>,
> fwb...@aim.com (Frank) writes...
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 10:23:17 -0000, Philip J. Koenig
>> <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > (partly
>> > due to the fact that browser vendors tend to be way too
>> > HTML-centric when they design an email app - I consider
>> > HTML email to be pretty evil - and because I'm not
>> > particularly enamored of the single point of failure.)
>>
>> Gosh.
>>
>> M2 defaults to text only.
> I manage various business sites and much of my criteria revolves
> around how I will deploy an app to users.
> Unfortunately if there is functionality there, users will
> turn it on, especially with things like HTML messages
> because they think it's "cool", and because they probably
> do this at home.
Yeah, well, my life revolves around stupid Luser$ tricks. I wear a
headset and deal with Windows.
But you're changing the subject.
The comment that "browser vendors tend to be way too much HTML-centric"
really didn't refer to stupid user tricks--all it did was betray a lack of
familiarity with Opera and with Opera's approach to the Internet.
M2 is definitely NOT HTML-centric. It's about the least HTML-centric
email program designed to run in a windowed environment that I've seen in
a decade of interneting in windowed environments.
The only negative comment I have about Opera as a mail and news client is
that it doesn't handle multipart binaries well. And I'm not sure that's
really negative; I suspect that that was a design choice--trying to deal
with multipart binaries within the context of Opera's primary purpose in
life would probably mess things up.
And that's why God gave us PAN.
--
Blogging from Pine View Farm--http://frankwbell.no-ip.info/weblog
Philip J. Koenig
Mark V writes...
> In opera.general Philip J. Koenig wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 10:03:45 -0500,
> > in article <dqb3sg$265$1...@news.opera.com>,
> > notv...@nul.invalid (Mark V) writes...
> >> In opera.general Philip J. Koenig wrote:
> >>
> >> > Like I said, I have no idea how it impacts memory usage,
> >> > my main interest in the feature has been thinking about
> >> > deploying Opera at sites where I don't want users to be
> >> > using the email functions for security and other reasons.
> >> > (luckily most of the users aren't savvy enough to research
> >> > how simple it would be to turn email functions back on :-)
> >>
> >> You could use an administrative opera6.ini assuming NTFS ACLs or
> >> other means to prevent tampering with the file.
> >> http://www.opera.com/support/mastering/sysadmin/
> >
> >
> > The problem with using non-writable-by-user configuration
> > files is that you either cripple the user's ability to
> > customize the app, and/or you end up having to do a lot
> > more babysitting because various things can't be done
> > by the user any more and they have to wait for you to
> > make minor changes.
>
> I cannot argue with that as a general principle, but know that such
> an opera6.ini file only overrides the administrator's specifically
> include options, not all options/setings.
I wasn't aware of that, and it sounds like a reasonable way to
balance the writable/unwritable-by-user aspects.
> > Better IMHO would simply be a way to install the app so
> > that those functions are truly unavailable. Netscape
> > and Mozilla for many years could be installed this way.
>
>
--
Philip J. Koenig
<op.s3hw7...@localhost.localdomain>, exclipy writes...
That has been my recent experience as well. Opera tends to
allocate more and more memory to itself over time (and usage,
presumably) and only quitting and re-starting the app seems
able to take the memory usage back down.
Richard Grevers
<See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>
> That has been my recent experience as well. Opera tends to
> allocate more and more memory to itself over time (and usage,
> presumably) and only quitting and re-starting the app seems
> able to take the memory usage back down.
>
substantial memory, e.g. photoshop with a sizable image. not that I ever
find such forcing necessary: 8.51 is currently using a modest 105MB for 24
pages (including Java, which contributes about 16MB as soon as you start
it) after running for 13 days.
(Win2K, 512MB). If I had a Gig of RAM, Opera would probably used more, but
I also know that it would cope well if I only had 64MB RAM.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Brixomatic
> > That has been my recent experience as well. Opera tends to
> > allocate more and more memory to itself over time (and usage,
> > presumably) and only quitting and re-starting the app seems
> > able to take the memory usage back down.
> >
> Another option is to load another application that will require
> substantial memory, e.g. photoshop with a sizable image. not that I ever
> find such forcing necessary: 8.51 is currently using a modest 105MB for 24
> pages (including Java, which contributes about 16MB as soon as you start
> it) after running for 13 days.
> (Win2K, 512MB). If I had a Gig of RAM, Opera would probably used more, but
> I also know that it would cope well if I only had 64MB RAM.
What you're doing there is forcing the OS to page out old pages, then
closing the app again to have free space available in RAM.
It can also be archieved by writing a single textfile that contains the
single instruction:
Mystring = (80000000)
and saving it as "cleanup.vbe".
Doubleclicking it will have a similar effect (you may want to increase
the number if you want that little script to consume and instantly give
up more RAM).
You will need to have the visual basic runtimes installed (which is
quite commonly the case if you're running Office on your PC).
Some "optimizers", as they call themselves, do nothing else in their so-
called "RAM defrag"-function.
Anyway, this is what will happen anyway if another app requires RAM on a
System that has most of its RAM in use with the only dirrenrence that it
happens much more progressively.
Windows 2000, by the way, pages out anyway if you minimize an app, so
minimizing an apps window and restoring it will have a similar effect on
a single application. (open the taskmanager, watch the RAM-Footpriont of
opera, minimize it, watch the RAM-usage drop, restore it, watch the new
RAM usage: it's less than before).
Take it easy
news:MPG.1e330cbd7...@news.opera.com:
> joha...@remove.this.bit.mailcan.com said...
>> reHi Brix
>>
>> The problem is we have half the amount of ram you do and Opera is
>> hogging it all.
>
> Then why is it, that Opera only chewed 24 megs after startup on my
> machine and 60 at your place?
>
> Now, here's a shock for you:
> http://www.plush.de/brix/files/screenshot.png
> Look at the marked line in the taskmanager and the amount of tabs
> I have opened. (As I don't want to expose my system too much, I
> obscured some icons and processes)
I checked the word "speichernutzung" and it looks like "memory".
What is the Virtual memory during the same time? That is the culprit
in my case.
You have only 3 tabs open. I too don't have problem with 3 tabs. I
usually have 10-20 depending on my work and other factors.
And if i understood correct, as and when I go navigate backward and
forward, the memory seems to grow. So just using Opera for a few
hours need not cause the virtual memory increase, but lots of
navigation. One example is going through a site with lots of images
and you use Opera's fastforward to browse through all of the images.
Takeiteasy.
Philip J. Koenig
in article <MPG.1e36f095d...@news.opera.com>,
brixo...@yahoo.com (Brixomatic) writes...
> Windows 2000, by the way, pages out anyway if you minimize an app, so=20
> minimizing an apps window and restoring it will have a similar effect on=20
> a single application. (open the taskmanager, watch the RAM-Footpriont of=20
> opera, minimize it, watch the RAM-usage drop, restore it, watch the new=20
> RAM usage: it's less than before).
I would think that you could explain that by GDI usage or
something having to do with display resources. (if you
aren't displaying anything, resource usage is less)
Philip J. Koenig
in article <op.s3ip8bq7igav4j@richardg>,
newsr...@dramatic.co.nz (Richard Grevers) writes...
I guess I may be showing my age, but I don't consider 105MB
RAM usage for a single app to be "modest".
There are a _lot_ of people who have only 256MB or less on
their PCs.
Brixomatic
> Brixomatic <brixo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1e330cbd7...@news.opera.com:
>
> > joha...@remove.this.bit.mailcan.com said...
> >> reHi Brix
> >>
> >> The problem is we have half the amount of ram you do and Opera is
> >> hogging it all.
> >
> > Then why is it, that Opera only chewed 24 megs after startup on my
> > machine and 60 at your place?
> >
> > Now, here's a shock for you:
> > http://www.plush.de/brix/files/screenshot.png
> > Look at the marked line in the taskmanager and the amount of tabs
> > I have opened. (As I don't want to expose my system too much, I
> > obscured some icons and processes)
>
> I checked the word "speichernutzung" and it looks like "memory".
> What is the Virtual memory during the same time? That is the culprit
> in my case.
The columns means "memory usage" and it displays the physical RAM that
is currently being used. Of course there is RAM paged out to virtual
memory (haven't had a look, but I suppose it's about 60 megs), but as
you can see, there is still plenty of physical RAM free on the system
(239931 KB physical RAM used overall, 2588328 KB are available,
including virtual RAM) - I have 512 MB of physical RAM on my system and
a pagefile of 2 Gigs which explains the big number.
Which means: almost half of the physical RAM is used by running
applications, Opera only used 19.720 KB of it when I made the
screenshot. Opera has requested more but did not actually use it, so it
was paged out and available for other applications.
The fact that I have only 3 tabs open in this example does not mean I
did not have more than that open earlier. :-)
> And if i understood correct, as and when I go navigate backward and
> forward, the memory seems to grow. So just using Opera for a few
> hours need not cause the virtual memory increase, but lots of
> navigation. One example is going through a site with lots of images
> and you use Opera's fastforward to browse through all of the images.
If you use Opera a lot and keep it open, and you open another
application to work with that, every modern OS will page out the memory
pages that have been accessed the longest time ago, for the newly
started application - if it finds a shortage of physical RAM. If there's
a memorypage that Opera or any other application has not requested for a
longer time, it is paged out. This happens with every application.
If you, however, bring opera to front and work with it it _may_ be
necessary to page in something that has been paged out from virtual RAM
back into physical RAM. But as you can imagine there is no no big
difference to using a HD-Cache instead.
As you can only work with one application at a time, this is hardly a
problem. The real problem are programs, that are constantly accessing
their ram, which means: they're preventing it to be paged out.
Opera, like a graphics-application or an office-application is usually
not always working in the background.
But a virus-scanner for example is, or a personal firewall software.
quickload-icons for programs like Mozilla or OpenOffice are even trying
to hold parts of the app to be "quick-started" in RAM to have 'em load
faster - they really steal memory for the apps you're currently using.
Spyware on your system would be constantly scanning it, such using
ressources, doenload-managers would be constantly writing someting to
the harddisc, video.encoding software that is encoding something in the
backgound needs its RAm all the time, etc.
Opera is, like most Office programs, idling around for most of its time.
Just because an application has requested memory, it does not need to
use it all the time, just because it has a lot of pages in physical RAm
at the moment, does not mean those pages can't be paged out if another
app needs them and it does not mean those pages need to be paged in
again (tabs that you may have opened some time ago, that are still
cached, paged out, but you don't look at them anyway - those which are
just waiting to be purged from the RAM-cache).
Anyway: I told 2 possibilities to force paging out to have "free RAM",
if you don't like yor system to to that progressively: the simple, one-
liner Visual Basic script or just minimizing an app (at least in windows
2000 minimizing an app to the taskbar, will page out most of the app's
currently uses physical RAM to virtual memory) that you think is using
too much physical RAM at the moment.
As I said: concentrate on the apps that are causing constant workload in
the background, instead of those that idle around. Identify them, kick
those resource-hogs out. My personal experience tells me that most of
the time the virus scanner, the firewall, some nasty spyware and system
add-ons are the real performance-killer - or a harddrive in PIO-Mode.
If on your system "Opera makes the difference" it may well be that Opera
is just the last straw that breaks the camel's back.
Ah, nearly forgot: Opera is, while you're actively using it, causing
disc access.. a virus scanner may monitor disc accesses. Windows'
indexing service (that can be disabled for each folder) will index newly
created files. You may disable those for Operas cache-directory
(User/Admn seperation is an even better solution).
You may see a performance-breakdown if Opera is playing a lot of flash
animated things, even though it's in the background - but that's not
really Operas fault, but macromedias and of those who pack up their
website with flash-ads - a filter.ini file could help you out there, you
may give it a shot.
Take it easy
news:MPG.1e3b0294a...@news.opera.com:
> takei...@nospam.com said...
>> Brixomatic <brixo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1e330cbd7...@news.opera.com:
>>
>> > joha...@remove.this.bit.mailcan.com said...
>> >> reHi Brix
>> >>
>> >> The problem is we have half the amount of ram you do and Opera
>> >> is hogging it all.
>> >
>> > Then why is it, that Opera only chewed 24 megs after startup on
>> > my machine and 60 at your place?
>> >
>> > Now, here's a shock for you:
>> > http://www.plush.de/brix/files/screenshot.png Look at the
>> > marked line in the taskmanager and the amount of tabs I have
>> > opened. (As I don't want to expose my system too much, I
>> > obscured some icons and processes)
>>
>> I checked the word "speichernutzung" and it looks like "memory".
>> What is the Virtual memory during the same time? That is the
>> culprit in my case.
>
> The columns means "memory usage" and it displays the physical RAM
> that is currently being used. Of course there is RAM paged out to
> virtual memory (haven't had a look, but I suppose it's about 60
> megs),
But this grows significantly as time progresses (like 150M for eg.).
I close Opera and start again, it is just 30M or so.
> but as you can see, there is still plenty of physical RAM free on
the system (239931 KB physical RAM used overall, 2588328
> KB are available, including virtual RAM) - I have 512 MB of
physical RAM on my system and a pagefile of 2 Gigs which explains
> the big number. Which means: almost half of the physical RAM is
> used by running applications, Opera only used 19.720 KB of it when
> I made the screenshot.
The amount you are listing changes frequently. Just minimize Opera
and check the RAM usage, it goes to a minimum. Restore it and it
grows much more again.
> Opera has requested more but did not actually use it, so it was
paged out and available for other
> applications. The fact that I have only 3 tabs open in this
> example does not mean I did not have more than that open earlier.
> :-)
>
>> And if i understood correct, as and when I go navigate backward
>> and forward, the memory seems to grow. So just using Opera for a
>> few hours need not cause the virtual memory increase, but lots of
>> navigation. One example is going through a site with lots of
>> images and you use Opera's fastforward to browse through all of
>> the images.
>
> If you use Opera a lot and keep it open, and you open another
> application to work with that, every modern OS will page out the
> memory pages that have been accessed the longest time ago, for the
> newly started application - if it finds a shortage of physical
> RAM. If there's a memorypage that Opera or any other application
> has not requested for a longer time, it is paged out. This happens
> with every application. If you, however, bring opera to front and
> work with it it _may_ be necessary to page in something that has
> been paged out from virtual RAM back into physical RAM. But as you
> can imagine there is no no big difference to using a HD-Cache
> instead. As you can only work with one application at a time, this
> is hardly a problem.
What do you mean by that? I should use DOS? :) Hardly I use only one
application. I check the browser and write a document, calculate in
excel, check my emails, set an appointment. Probably in few minutes I
might switch to 4 or 5 apps.
> The real problem are programs, that are constantly accessing their
ram, which means: they're preventing it
> to be paged out. Opera, like a graphics-application or an
> office-application is usually not always working in the
> background. But a virus-scanner for example is, or a personal
> firewall software. quickload-icons for programs like Mozilla or
> OpenOffice are even trying to hold parts of the app to be
> "quick-started" in RAM to have 'em load faster -
not present.
> they really steal memory for the apps you're currently using.
Spyware on your system
> would be constantly scanning it,
No spyware.
> such using ressources, doenload-managers would be constantly
writing someting to the
> harddisc,
No download managers.
> video.encoding software that is encoding something in
> the backgound needs its RAm all the time, etc.
No such apps.
> Opera is, like most Office programs, idling around for most of its
> time. Just because an application has requested memory, it does
> not need to use it all the time, just because it has a lot of
> pages in physical RAm at the moment, does not mean those pages
> can't be paged out if another app needs them and it does not mean
> those pages need to be paged in again (tabs that you may have
> opened some time ago, that are still cached, paged out, but you
> don't look at them anyway - those which are just waiting to be
> purged from the RAM-cache).
>
> Anyway: I told 2 possibilities to force paging out to have "free
> RAM", if you don't like yor system to to that progressively: the
> simple, one- liner Visual Basic script or just minimizing an app
> (at least in windows 2000 minimizing an app to the taskbar, will
> page out most of the app's currently uses physical RAM to virtual
> memory) that you think is using too much physical RAM at the
> moment.
The most memory hog is Opera. It takes up a huge amount of virtual
memory. Sum of all other major apps is less than Opera's. Thats why
when Opera is closed and opened again, everything works fine.
> As I said: concentrate on the apps that are causing constant
> workload in the background, instead of those that idle around.
I have checked the RAM as well as Virtual Memory, and no other
application is hogging the memory.
> Identify them, kick those resource-hogs out. My personal
> experience tells me that most of the time the virus scanner, the
> firewall, some nasty spyware and system add-ons are the real
> performance-killer - or a harddrive in PIO-Mode. If on your system
> "Opera makes the difference" it may well be that Opera is just the
> last straw that breaks the camel's back.
Rather it is the last barrel thats breaking the back. Because without
that the RAM and VM is very much under control.
If Opera is just the last straw then when I close and open it should
have the same effect, but it doesn't since it takes up much less
memory on reopening and hence I wish I can do this VM release builtin
in some way and I can speed up the system.
Takeiteasy.
Petter Nilsen
<See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
> I guess I may be showing my age, but I don't consider 105MB
> RAM usage for a single app to be "modest".
>
> There are a _lot_ of people who have only 256MB or less on
> their PCs.
There's a commom misconception that the working set of an application, as
seen in the task manager, is the amount of physical memory the
application is using. This is entirely correct.
The working set actually tells you how many virtual pages in the process
are mapped into physical memory.
What the OS will do, when an application such as Opera is using external
DLLs or even other parts of opera.dll, is to map that part of the dll into
the virtual address space of Opera. The actual memory used will not
increase, only the working set.
To use an example for the technical people out there:
- Open a file
- Call CreateFileMapping to create a mapping handle
- Call MapViewOfFile twice to create two different identical views on the
same file
- Try looping through just one of the views and look at what that does to
your process' working set
- Now try looping through both views and look at what that does to your
process' working set
The result you will find is that the working set from #5 is double the
working set from #4. However, the OS isn't using any more physical memory
in #5 then in #4. So #5 will show as twice the memory used in the task
manager, but in reality, there is _no_ difference in the physical memory
used!
Now, if you minimize Opera, you will see that the memory used in task
manager will decrease significantly. This is because the working set is
freed by the OS.
Although I'm no big expert on working sets, I hope this clears up some
points.
--
Petter Nilsen, Software Engineer, Opera Software
Phone no: +4791684569 / pettern at (guess what) opera.com
Petter Nilsen
<petter...@opera.com> wrote:
> Now, if you minimize Opera, you will see that the memory used in task
> manager will decrease significantly. This is because the working set is
> freed by the OS.
>
> Although I'm no big expert on working sets, I hope this clears up some
> points.
One thing worth mentioning is that plugins and other DLLs used by Opera
will increase the working set of the Opera process significantly. Just
try turning off plugins and then go to a site with plugins and compare the
memory used to having plugins enabled.
Howard Brazee
<petter...@opera.com> wrote:
>One thing worth mentioning is that plugins and other DLLs used by Opera
>will increase the working set of the Opera process significantly. Just
>try turning off plugins and then go to a site with plugins and compare the
>memory used to having plugins enabled.
Which is useful if you're deciding whether or not you want those
plug-ins. But once you've made the decision, the only size that
matters is the size you use.
When I was a kid, a neighbor told us why he used unfiltered
cigarettes. It seems that he tried a filtered cigarette without the
filter and it didn't taste so good. That makes as much sense as
measuring Opera in conditions other than how I intend on using it.
William J. Leary Jr.
news:op.s5zvk...@pettern-xp.oslo.opera.com...
> There's a commom misconception that the working set of an application, as
> seen in the task manager, is the amount of physical memory the
> application is using. This is entirely correct.
Should that be "This isn't entirely correct" ?
- Bill