On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 4:27 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Just about the "4 good, 8 bad" part, it seems quite arbitrary -- Wouldn't > that be hardware-dependent? > I would think users with "only" 1GB may have different needs and > expectations from users with 16+GB. >
It's more about acceptable memory usage in comparison to other browsers. FWIW a user with 1GB might have a better experience with multiple processes due to less crashes from virtual address space fragmentation. It depends on what we consider our user's needs: less crashes or less swapping? > Intuitively I don't grasp how each content process can add that much more > memory that it would become a "major problem" jumping from 4 to 8 -- Are > these measurements accessible somewhere, to get a sense of the magnitudes > involved? > > I'd suggest looking at the memory overhead of Chrome's individual processes as compared to ours, it's pretty impressive. My blog posts on our own e10s memory usage [1] and comparison to other browsers [2] have further details. I'm planning on performing the same measurements again to see how we do a year later with e10s-multi enabled (along with the GPU process, etc). > After that, of course for each machine there may be a limit we would want > to enforce, so this discussion here is still needed. > Sure, this is a harder number to nail down. -e [1] http://www.erahm.org/2016/02/11/memory-usage-of-firefox-with-e10s-enabled/ [2] http://www.erahm.org/2016/02/12/are-they-slim-yet/ Thanks, > Gerald > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 9:13:26 AM UTC+11, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > ... > > Now for the reason I raised this: the major downside of using multiple > > processes is that it increases memory usage. Recent-ish measurements > showed > > that for e10s-multi we could probably go up to 4 content processes > without > > blowing it out too badly, but 8 would be a major problem. > ... > > Nick > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Nicholas Nethercote < > [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I want to understand all the different processes that we can and will > have > > > in Firefox. Here's a list I constructed off the top of my head. > > > > > > - main process > > > > > > - content process(es): 1 on release for most users; 2 on Nightly > > > > > > - plugin process: just for Flash now? > > > > > > - gfx compositor process (bug 1264543, in Fx53) > > > > > > - file:// URL access process (bug 1147911, in Fx53) > > > > > > IIRC there was a proposal for a thumbnail generation process a while > back > > > but judging by bug 1187441 that was scrapped. > > > > > > Do I have any of these details wrong? Have I missed any? > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Nick > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
