[Sugar-devel] [RELEASE] Surf 106
tomeu at sugarlabs.org
Wed Mar 4 15:17:19 EST 2009
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 21:06, Bobby Powers <bobbypowers at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:27:00AM -0500, Bobby Powers wrote:
>>>On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:21:50AM +0000, Bobby Powers wrote:
>>>>>An informal test showed that Browse in sugar-emulator used 100MB in
>>>>>opening and navigating to gmail, while surf used 85MB. That still
>>>>>seems like a lot, but its a 15% savings right off the bat.
>>>> Please document how to measure the memory use (even if non-academic),
>>>> to make it possible to compare on other environments using exact same
>>>> measuring method (as I suspect it may vary a lot, depending on
>>>> compile options of e.g. xulrunner).
>>>What I did:
>>>step 1: run a new instance of sugar-emulator
>>>step 2: click on the browse or surf icon from the home view
>>>step 3: navigate to https://mail.google.com
>>>step 4: log in using your gmail credentials
>>>step 5: open gnome-system-monitor and check the memory usage
>> You did mention that your test was informal. Anyway, here are some notes
>> if someone ones to test further:
>> I avoid registered Google services, and I guess I am not the only one:
>> It would probably be good to use some public web pages.
> I will do more testing over the next few days. My choice of gmail was
> based on the fact that its one of the most complex web
> sites/applications I could think of quickly.
>> Memory usage seem to also be about cleaning up memory, so probably
>> would make sense to measure a larger number of web pages (fully loading
>> all content on each page and then move on to the next page).
>> I don't use GNOME, and don't know how it calculates memory consumption.
>> Probably would be better to use terminal-based measurement like "free"
>> or some other tool providing more optimal info.
>> While googling for info about this, I also stumbled across a hint that
>> Gecko-based browsers can be configured to use more or less memory cache
>> - - and has a live status by entering about:cache in the address entry.
>> Would be interesting to know if WebKit-based browsers have something
> I think there are configuration options somewhere, as I seem to
> remember that Chrome on Andriod (based on webkit) can be configured to
> clear its memory caches when the kernel signals that it is low on
Any chance Sugar (and its dependencies) can do that on normal Linux
systems one day?
>> - Jonas
>>  Pages like http://dotnetperls.com/Content/Browser-Memory.aspx
>> demonstrate how WebKit-based browsers in the past have struggled with
>> not cleaning up properly after itself. That test was done on Windows,
>> but http://blog.pavlov.net/2008/03/11/firefox-3-memory-usage/ mentions
>> how recent Gecko at least (don't know about WebKit) use same memory
>> allocator on Windows and Linux.
> wow. it should be quite interesting to look at the memory usage over
> time to see if webkit has either fixed their memory leaks or caching
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
More information about the Sugar-devel