On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Eric Rahm <er...@mozilla.com> wrote: > 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). >
There's also been a big push in Chrome to reduce their memory usage, so it'll be interesting to see how that affects things, too. > > > > 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 < > > n.neth...@gmail.com > > > > 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 > > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > > > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
