Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday June 15 2017, @10:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the will-the-bloat-be-taken-out dept.

Firefox has improved its multi-process architecture in order to isolate more content while keeping memory use low:

Firefox 54 launched with a more advanced multi-process architecture than the one we saw implemented in Firefox 48 last year. The improved architecture raises the number of processes enabled by default from two to five, which Mozilla argues is a "just right" compromise between low memory usage on one side and performance and security on the other.

[...] Switching to a simpler extension model allows Firefox to enable multiple processes and also isolate them in sandboxes. Mozilla previously enabled only two processes, one for the UI and one for content, last year, in Firefox 48. This ensured that the browser wouldn't hang as much due to web pages affecting the performance of the browser interface. It also brought partial sandboxing by keeping the content isolated from the browser (as much as possible).

Mozilla is now taking it to the next level by implementing one process for the browser interface and four for content. Why four? The organization believes that this is the "just right" amount of processes to have for the majority of users, and also in terms of optimizing memory usage.

[...] Mozilla ran its own memory usage benchmarks, which showed significant memory usage reduction compared to Chrome:

  • Windows 10 — Chrome used 1.77X memory as Firefox (64-bit), and 2.44X as Firefox (32-bit)
  • macOS — Chrome used 1.36X memory as Firefox (64-bit)
  • Linux — Chrome used 1.42X memory as Firefox (64-bit)

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday June 15 2017, @04:23PM (4 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday June 15 2017, @04:23PM (#526078)

    To be fair, there's no real reason not to be using as much of RAM as possible. That's why it's there, right? To be used? It's just a problem when you want to multitask $program with something else.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday June 15 2017, @04:47PM

    by Pino P (4721) on Thursday June 15 2017, @04:47PM (#526084) Journal

    It's just a problem when you want to multitask $program with something else.

    Yet some applications' developers are arrogant enough to assume that almost no one wants to multitask it. This arrogance is only multiplied when an operating system's window manager keeps all applications maximized, such as stock Android 3 through 6 on tablets.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 16 2017, @02:03AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 16 2017, @02:03AM (#526296)

    No, definitely not. That kind of incompetence is why software performance remains so bad. We don't need to go back to the days where every byte counts, but using it just because it's their is ridiculous.

    I personally, like to run VMs, multiple programs and use ZFS with several RAM intensive functions enabled. That's why we have so much RAM, so we can choose what to use it on, not because some incompetent and / or lazy programmer doesn't have to consider optimizing the software properly.

    Other people, don't like having to max out whatever RAM slots their particular computer has in order to get it to run halfway decently.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday June 16 2017, @03:17PM (1 child)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Friday June 16 2017, @03:17PM (#526463)

      It would make more sense to be able to set a slider for each program limiting its max RAM usage, sort of like sandboxing.

      not because some incompetent and / or lazy programmer doesn't have to consider optimizing the software properly.

      Well yeah, obviously optimization should happen, but if you're not using the RAM it's just going to waste.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 16 2017, @06:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 16 2017, @06:52PM (#526565)

        How does the developer know what I'm using my RAM for? Sliders are useful for deciding how much data to cache, but if the programmers are being sloppy and lazy, it's not going to do much good.

        In this case, the sandboxing is probably well worth the increase in the RAM usage. Fx wasn't exactly a glutton for RAM in the first place, so it's not likely to be the issue it would be if a real hog like Chrome had that kind of increase.