为什么Firefox使用47 MB​​的RAM？ [英] Why does Firefox use 47 MB of RAM?

问题描述

我刚做了一个ps aux在我的Linux系统上，并意识到

Firefox使用了大量47 MB​​的RAM，而Thunderbird

所以也许这对我来说更令人担忧，但是我认为这似乎出现了问题。这些是处理小量用户数据的
程序，

还有那么大！


我知道这是好的每个人的大块只是共享

库，或者我推断，因为它似乎说

内在使用更像每个25 MB，但仍然...... br />
25兆字节是一个很大的内存。


究竟是什么，所有RAM用于

无论如何？ />

它是如何实现的，那个

的软件仅仅处理数十或数百千字节的实际

用户数据需要几十兆的内存

来处理它？<​​br />

我知道有些人会说，哦，Windoze

并且Macintosh应用程序使用相同的内存量......这在我看来并不合理。

。坏工程的三个例子

（或者根本没有工程，我应该说）没有做好

它是对的。

I just did a "ps aux" on my Linux system and realized that
Firefox uses a massive 47 MB of RAM, and Thunderbird
uses an amazing 45 MB. I don''t have a "hot rod" P4 computer
so perhaps this is all the more alarming to me, but
something seems to have gone wrong, I think. These are
programs that deal with piddling amounts of user data,
yet there so big!

I know that a good chunk of each is just shared
libraries, or so I infer because it seems to say that
the intrinsic usage is more like 25 MB each, but still...
25 megabytes is a lot of memory.

Just what the heck is all that RAM being used for
anyway?

And how has it come to this, that software that
deals with mere tens or hundreds of kilobytes of actual
user data somehow requires tens of megabytes of memory
to process it?

And I know what some will say, oh, the Windoze
and the Macintosh applications use the same
amount of memory... Well that doesn''t justify it
in my view. Three examples of bad engineering
(or no engineering at all, I should say) don''t make
it right.

推荐答案

在阳光明媚的日子（2005年12月26日06:28:32 -0800），它发生了提问者

< x6 ** *@yahoo.com>写在

< 11 ********************** @ g49g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>：

On a sunny day (26 Dec 2005 06:28:32 -0800) it happened "Questioner"
<x6***@yahoo.com> wrote in
<11**********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>:

我刚做了一个ps aux在我的Linux系统上，我意识到Firefox使用了大量47 MB​​的RAM，而Thunderbird使用了惊人的45 MB。我没有热棒。 P4计算机
所以也许这对我来说更加惊人，但是我认为似乎有些事情出了问题。这些是处理大量用户数据的程序，
还有那么大！
不用担心。它将全部换成磁盘:-)

在Duron 950上

顶部

内存：386780K av，382692K使用，4088K免费，0K shrd，8184K buff

交换：530104K av，176208K使用，353896K免费181920K缓存


呵呵

我知道每个人的很大一部分只是共享的库，或者我推断，因为它似乎说内在的使用更像每个25 MB，但仍然......
25兆字节是很多记忆。
2 GB芯片来自三星和其他一些芯片，其中8个是2GByte。

2000/25 = 80 Firefox ..

这很可能是思维方式，记得Billy The Gates声称：

''640 KILO Byte对任何人都应该足够了？''

每位价格正在下降......

无论如何，用于
的内存到底是什么？
my_memory =（char *）malloc（25000000）;

？


它是如何产生的，那个软件
处理几十或几百千字节的实际用户数据，某种程度上需要几十兆字节的内存才能处理它？
是的，看看渲染一些html页面需要多长时间....


我知道有些人会说，哦，Windoze
和Macintosh应用程序使用相同数量的内存......在我看来，这并不能证明它是合理的。坏工程的三个例子
（或者根本没有工程，我应该说）没有做好。

I just did a "ps aux" on my Linux system and realized that
Firefox uses a massive 47 MB of RAM, and Thunderbird
uses an amazing 45 MB. I don''t have a "hot rod" P4 computer
so perhaps this is all the more alarming to me, but
something seems to have gone wrong, I think. These are
programs that deal with piddling amounts of user data,
yet there so big! Not to worry,. it will all be swapped out to disk :-)
On the Duron 950
top
Mem: 386780K av, 382692K used, 4088K free, 0K shrd, 8184K buff
Swap: 530104K av, 176208K used, 353896K free 181920K cached

hehe
I know that a good chunk of each is just shared
libraries, or so I infer because it seems to say that
the intrinsic usage is more like 25 MB each, but still...
25 megabytes is a lot of memory. The 2 GB chip is out from Samsung and some others, 8 of these make 2GByte.
2000 / 25 = 80 Firefoxes..
This is likely the way of thinking, remember Billy The Gates claiming:
''640 KILO Byte should be enough for anyone?''
Price per bit is going way down....
Just what the heck is all that RAM being used for
anyway? my_memory = (char*) malloc(25000000);
?

And how has it come to this, that software that
deals with mere tens or hundreds of kilobytes of actual
user data somehow requires tens of megabytes of memory
to process it? yea, look how long it takes to render some html pages....

And I know what some will say, oh, the Windoze
and the Macintosh applications use the same
amount of memory... Well that doesn''t justify it
in my view. Three examples of bad engineering
(or no engineering at all, I should say) don''t make
it right.

啊哈，好吧，很多年以前我想过：

''mm也许我应该写自己的webbrowser''。

一些相关的例程在NewsFleX新闻阅读器中（我写过），但我学会了/>
非常快：写一个好的webbrowser是一个终身项目....

有些已经在它了....

你可以加入或改进，它是开源的。

Win XP / exploder用户无法做到的事情。

但考虑到每字节的成本，确保你的时间加起来

足够节省....

Aha, well, many years ago I thought:
''mm maybe I should write my own webbrowser''.
Some related routines are in NewsFleX newsreader (I wrote), but I learned
really fast: That writing a good webbrowser is a lifetime project....
And some already are at it....
You can join them or improve, it is open source.
Something Win XP / exploder users cannot do.
But considering that cost per byte thingy, make sure your time adds up to
enough saving....

2005年12月26日06:28:32 -0800" Questioner" < 5233 *** @ yahoo.com>写道：


[snip]

On 26 Dec 2005 06:28:32 -0800 "Questioner" <x6***@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]

我知道有些人会说，哦，Windoze
和Macintosh应用程序使用相同的（或者根本没有工程，我应该说）没有做好。

And I know what some will say, oh, the Windoze
and the Macintosh applications use the same
amount of memory... Well that doesn''t justify it
in my view. Three examples of bad engineering
(or no engineering at all, I should say) don''t make
it right.

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=407044
http：/ /developers.slashdot.org/artic.../11/25/1817215


-

删除MYSHOES发送电子邮件

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=407044
http://developers.slashdot.org/artic.../11/25/1817215

--
remove MYSHOES to email

Jan Panteltje写道：

Jan Panteltje wrote:

啊哈，很多年前我曾想过：
也许我应该写自己的webbrowser''。
一些相关的例程在NewsFleX新闻阅读器中（我写过），但我学得很快
：写一个好的webbrowser是一个终生的项目.. ..
有些已经在它....
你可以加入他们或改进，它是开源的。


我自己尝试过。 HTML已经足够糟糕，我得到它主要工作，

但是添加Javascript会带来真正的奉献。

我在查看简单页面时尝试使用Dillo。在我的旧系统上，它比Firefox更快*

。

但是考虑到每字节的成本，确保你的时间加起来
足够的储蓄....

Aha, well, many years ago I thought:
''mm maybe I should write my own webbrowser''.
Some related routines are in NewsFleX newsreader (I wrote), but I learned
really fast: That writing a good webbrowser is a lifetime project....
And some already are at it....
You can join them or improve, it is open source.
I tried that myself. HTML is bad enough, I got it mostly working,
but adding Javascript would have taken real dedication.
I try to use Dillo when I am viewing simple pages. It''s *much*
faster than Firefox on my older system.
But considering that cost per byte thingy, make sure your time adds up to
enough saving....

是的，但与此同时，垃圾填埋场正在填满我们有毒的电子废物，将其浸入我们的垃圾中供水等

Yeah, but meanwhile, the landfills are filling up with our toxic
electronic waste, leaching it into our water supply etc.

这篇关于为什么Firefox使用47 MB​​的RAM？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！