Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #245235 > unrolled thread

Re: Memory leak

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Re: Memory leak Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@surfnaked.ca> - 2022-02-11 19:20 +0100
    Re: Memory leak piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2022-02-11 19:30 +0100
      Re: Memory leak <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-02-12 09:20 +0100
    Re: Memory leak Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 21:00 +0100
      Re: Memory leak Bijan Soleymani <bijan@psq.com> - 2022-02-11 22:00 +0100
        Re: Memory leak Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 22:30 +0100

#245235 — Re: Memory leak

On Fri Feb 11 09:43:03 2022 Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:

 > On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 09:53:17 -0700
 > Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> wrote:
 >
 >> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:06:01 -0500
 >> Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
 >>
 >>> I seem to have a serious memory leak on my system (Lenovo W550s) -
 >>> the memory usage seems to slowly but more or less steadily keep
 >>> increasing.
 >>>
 >>> This is a more or less normal (I think) desktop installation of Sid,
 >>> running Xfce4. Typical applications used are Firefox (currently with
 >>> just one extension: uBlock Origin), LibreOffice Writer, Sylpheed,
 >>> Xfce4 Terminal, and Liferea, all from the official repos.
 >>
 >> Firefox left running for days on end is a possible culprit.
 >
 > So I've heard. So is this something I just have to live with? Does
 > everyone have this problem? I actually did used to kill firefox
 > when I was experiencing memory pressure - it certainly relieved
 > the immediate problem, but I think I found that not all the memory
 > used was returned, and when I restarted firefox, the problem of
 > running out of memory often returned before long (i.e., in much
 > less time than after a fresh install).

You can quickly test this by taking Firefox down.  If the problem is
indeed with Firefox (as opposed to Debian), this isn't the place to
discuss it.

It seems to be the fashion nowadays to leave one's web browser up 24/7,
with dozens of tabs open.  Personally I can't understand this - I seldom
have more than two or three tabs open at once, and most of the time I
have only one open, which is why I treasure the option to not display
a tab bar when only one tab is open.  Also, I shut down my browser
(Seamonkey, for what it's worth) when I'm not using it; this reduces
load on the system and might even help security a little bit.

However, if this is a non-negotiable item for you, and the problem is
with Firefox, I suggest you either take the discussion to a Firefox
forum or just learn to live with it.
-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Life is perverse.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  It can be beautiful -
  X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  but it won't.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lily Tomlin

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#245236

On 11/02/2022 17:58, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> It seems to be the fashion nowadays to leave one's web browser up 24/7,
> with dozens of tabs open.  Personally I can't understand this - I seldom
> have more than two or three tabs open at once, and most of the time I
> have only one open, which is why I treasure the option to not display
> a tab bar when only one tab is open.

That would be very very ineffective for me. I work with dozens of things
all over internet everyday. Opening these pages every day again and
again would take time to find the bookmarks, click each of them or load
entire tree, wait for entire tree of bookmarks to load.. Why? I just
keep tabs open. Most used tabs which I check every few hours I keep
pinned, they change from tab into an icon only.

> Also, I shut down my browser
> (Seamonkey, for what it's worth) when I'm not using it; this reduces
> load on the system and might even help security a little bit.

You seem to have very limited internet usage. This is unlike many of us
here.
I keep my e-mail client and browser profiles (separate profiles for each
multi-tab window, each profile has separate purpose also for security
reasons) open 24/7. Also I run entire flock under firejail, that keeps
it very secure.

> However, if this is a non-negotiable item for you, and the problem is
> with Firefox, I suggest you either take the discussion to a Firefox
> forum or just learn to live with it.

Firefox ESR has a setting in GUI where you can decrease max. number of
processes spawned, as I mentioned in my previous message, that helps a
lot when you have limited memory. I run my work PC with 64 GB ECC.
Enough for everything. :)

--
With kindest regards, Piotr.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org/
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#245271

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 06:22:48PM +0000, piorunz wrote:
> On 11/02/2022 17:58, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> 
> > It seems to be the fashion nowadays to leave one's web browser up 24/7,
> > with dozens of tabs open.  Personally I can't understand this - I seldom
> > have more than two or three tabs open at once, and most of the time I
> > have only one open, which is why I treasure the option to not display
> > a tab bar when only one tab is open.
> 
> That would be very very ineffective for me. I work with dozens of things
> all over internet everyday. Opening these pages every day again and
> again would take time to find the bookmarks, click each of them or load
> entire tree, wait for entire tree of bookmarks to load.. Why? I just
> keep tabs open. Most used tabs which I check every few hours I keep
> pinned, they change from tab into an icon only.

FWIW, my usage profile is more like Charlie's. I go even further: I tend
to have different browser profiles for different tasks: my main browser
profile (that one for "looking around" in the Internets) has even Javascript
disabled. Some pages turn up unviewable, but then, that's a feature for
me: I deeply mistrust that model where I have an application in my computer
set up to execute random bits of code sucked up from somewhere in the 'net.

For tasks-specific things (mostly job related), I do set up separate
profiles.

Perhaps a bit less convenient, but not too bad.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#245246

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 09:58:40 -0800
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@surfnaked.ca> wrote:

> On Fri Feb 11 09:43:03 2022 Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  > On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 09:53:17 -0700
>  > Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> wrote:
>  >
>  >> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:06:01 -0500
>  >> Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> I seem to have a serious memory leak on my system (Lenovo W550s) -
>  >>> the memory usage seems to slowly but more or less steadily keep
>  >>> increasing.
>  >>>
>  >>> This is a more or less normal (I think) desktop installation of Sid,
>  >>> running Xfce4. Typical applications used are Firefox (currently with
>  >>> just one extension: uBlock Origin), LibreOffice Writer, Sylpheed,
>  >>> Xfce4 Terminal, and Liferea, all from the official repos.
>  >>
>  >> Firefox left running for days on end is a possible culprit.
>  >
>  > So I've heard. So is this something I just have to live with? Does
>  > everyone have this problem? I actually did used to kill firefox
>  > when I was experiencing memory pressure - it certainly relieved
>  > the immediate problem, but I think I found that not all the memory
>  > used was returned, and when I restarted firefox, the problem of
>  > running out of memory often returned before long (i.e., in much
>  > less time than after a fresh install).
> 
> You can quickly test this by taking Firefox down.  If the problem is
> indeed with Firefox (as opposed to Debian), this isn't the place to
> discuss it.

As I mentioned in another post, I do this occasionally, but I'm not
sure how to interpret the results. I just killed firefox; I got back
about 3.5 GB, but the system is still using about 4.8, and Xorg's usage
hasn't changed: ~ 4436M / 3081M / 105M.

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#245253

On 2022-02-11 14:52, Celejar wrote:
> As I mentioned in another post, I do this occasionally, but I'm not
> sure how to interpret the results. I just killed firefox; I got back
> about 3.5 GB, but the system is still using about 4.8, and Xorg's usage
> hasn't changed: ~ 4436M / 3081M / 105M.

Closing Firefox returns 100% of Firefox memory to OS (as long as all the 
processes are killed). I don't know that it would affect Xorg's usage 
though.

A lot of memory in Linux (and other OS's) is allocated to cache/buffers 
to speed things up. As programs use more memory the amount for that goes 
down.

For example on my system now with 16GB I have:
MiB Mem :  16007.9 total,   4564.8 free,
6306.2 used,   5136.9 buff/cache

(with thunderbird, chrome, etc. open).

So 5GB is used for cache and 6GB is used for programs and about 4GB is free.

Bijan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#245256

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:57:58 -0500
Bijan Soleymani <bijan@psq.com> wrote:

> On 2022-02-11 14:52, Celejar wrote:
> > As I mentioned in another post, I do this occasionally, but I'm not
> > sure how to interpret the results. I just killed firefox; I got back
> > about 3.5 GB, but the system is still using about 4.8, and Xorg's usage
> > hasn't changed: ~ 4436M / 3081M / 105M.
> 
> Closing Firefox returns 100% of Firefox memory to OS (as long as all the 
> processes are killed). I don't know that it would affect Xorg's usage 
> though.

I understand, but apparently sometimes application memory leaks show up
as increased Xorg memory usage:

https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/6538/xorg-memory-leaks

This is admittedly old, and xrestop doesn't show anything too
suspicious.

> A lot of memory in Linux (and other OS's) is allocated to cache/buffers 
> to speed things up. As programs use more memory the amount for that goes 
> down.
> 
> For example on my system now with 16GB I have:
> MiB Mem :  16007.9 total,   4564.8 free,
> 6306.2 used,   5136.9 buff/cache
> 
> (with thunderbird, chrome, etc. open).
> 
> So 5GB is used for cache and 6GB is used for programs and about 4GB is free.

I understand this, but as I've been saying, I have the impression that
too much memory is being actually used outside buffers and cache.

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web