On a typical evening, FF is using 178,800K  and it is using 
150,000k VM.  At these times I will usually have two tabs 
open and nothing in the download cache.

I'm confused and distressed because this is an enormous 
amount of memory and I have the uneasy feeling it could 
probalby go a good bit higher if I just kept going.

I have 2 gig of ram, a P4, 3.2 HT etc.

But I also run speech recognition software and it too needs 
as much resources as it can get.

And, with all the best ntentions, it's amazing how may 
processes are running all the time and...I want or need them.

Do I ignore memory usage of 175xxx and the same for VM 
usage?  Or, do I try to find out what is going on?

If I were to set limits on cache etc, which has been 
suggested, given my resources, how high should the 
reasonably be set?

I guess I'm confused about whethe to take this seriously 
just because the nubers look so very big.....

Louise

louise wrote:
> On a typical evening, FF is using 178,800K  and it is using 150,000k 
> VM.  At these times I will usually have two tabs open and nothing in the 
> download cache.
> 
> I'm confused and distressed because this is an enormous amount of memory 
> and I have the uneasy feeling it could probalby go a good bit higher if 
> I just kept going.
> 
> I have 2 gig of ram, a P4, 3.2 HT etc.
> 
> But I also run speech recognition software and it too needs as much 
> resources as it can get.
> 
> And, with all the best ntentions, it's amazing how may processes are 
> running all the time and...I want or need them.
> 
> Do I ignore memory usage of 175xxx and the same for VM usage?  Or, do I 
> try to find out what is going on?
> 
> If I were to set limits on cache etc, which has been suggested, given my 
> resources, how high should the reasonably be set?
> 
> I guess I'm confused about whethe to take this seriously just because 
> the nubers look so very big.....
> 
> Louise

Numbers are just numbers. If your computer is working as you need it, 
don't worry about it.

If you are having problems running Firefox with the other apps you need 
to have running due to accessibility issues, please post them. Its an 
important issue.

Lee

-- 
Leonidas Jones, Mozilla Champion
Learn about the Champs!  http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
The UFAQ'S http://www.ufaq.org/
http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
http://mozilla.com   http://mozilla.org

louise wrote:
> On a typical evening, FF is using 178,800K  and it is using 150,000k 
> VM.  At these times I will usually have two tabs open and nothing in the 
> download cache.
> 
> I'm confused and distressed because this is an enormous amount of memory 
> and I have the uneasy feeling it could probalby go a good bit higher if 
> I just kept going.
> 
> I have 2 gig of ram, a P4, 3.2 HT etc.
> 
> But I also run speech recognition software and it too needs as much 
> resources as it can get.
> 
> And, with all the best ntentions, it's amazing how may processes are 
> running all the time and...I want or need them.
> 
> Do I ignore memory usage of 175xxx and the same for VM usage?  Or, do I 
> try to find out what is going on?
> 
> If I were to set limits on cache etc, which has been suggested, given my 
> resources, how high should the reasonably be set?
> 
> I guess I'm confused about whethe to take this seriously just because 
> the nubers look so very big.....
> 
> Louise

If you have 2gig of RAM, why worry about a program using 178 meg? Ram is 
going to do anything for you sitting there unused. Saving it, by not 
using it, isnt going to make it last longer.

In both Windows and Macs at least (and I do believe Linux as well) the 
OS uses dynamic memory management. If a program requests more memory, 
and its available, then it gets it. As long as it doesnt interfere with 
other programs, then whats to worry about?

There is also the issue of what is actually 'used' and what is 
'reserved' for the program. That depends on the memory management 
software in the OS of course, as to whats displayed.

As an example: In pre OS X days on the Mac System (9x or earlier) the 
system had a graph showing how much memory was assigned to the program, 
and how much of it was used. Funny thing tho, if you assigned a program 
50K, and browsed to 2 pages, it showed usage of about 36K. Yet if you 
did a reallocation of memory (which required a restart of that program) 
and set it to 300K, and then browsed to the exact same 2 pages, the 
program would show a usage of a whopping 210K!  Imagine that, these 2 
pages suddenly grow on a order of 8 times! Most modern systems dont have 
that kind of incorrectness built in, but its good to keep it in mind.

On Windows, at least on some versions, the dynamic memory management may 
  cause a performance 'hit' if you come close to exceeding your actual 
RAM (with multiple programs), as instead of reducing the programs memory 
it simply swaps it to disk for you. To avoid this, I suggest running 
fewer programs at one time <g>

Leonidas Jones wrote:
> louise wrote:
> 
>> On a typical evening, FF is using 178,800K  and it is using 150,000k 
>> VM.  At these times I will usually have two tabs open and nothing in 
>> the download cache.
>>
>> I'm confused and distressed because this is an enormous amount of 
>> memory and I have the uneasy feeling it could probalby go a good bit 
>> higher if I just kept going.
>>
>> I have 2 gig of ram, a P4, 3.2 HT etc.
>>
>> But I also run speech recognition software and it too needs as much 
>> resources as it can get.
>>
>> And, with all the best ntentions, it's amazing how may processes are 
>> running all the time and...I want or need them.
>>
>> Do I ignore memory usage of 175xxx and the same for VM usage?  Or, do 
>> I try to find out what is going on?
>>
>> If I were to set limits on cache etc, which has been suggested, given 
>> my resources, how high should the reasonably be set?
>>
>> I guess I'm confused about whethe to take this seriously just because 
>> the nubers look so very big.....
>>
>> Louise
> 
> 
> Numbers are just numbers. If your computer is working as you need it, 
> don't worry about it.
> 
> If you are having problems running Firefox with the other apps you need 
> to have running due to accessibility issues, please post them. Its an 
> important issue.
> 
> Lee
> 
I do find that Dragon Naturally Speaking slows down after 
many hours of computer use.  When it gets slower, it also 
becomes less accurate.

Usually, closing everything and rebooting, fixes it, but 
I'll have to try just closing FF and reopening, without 
rebooting the machine.

Might it be wise to set some limits on the cache settings? 
And if so, what setting might give me a good balance between 
FF performance and system performance?

TIA

Louise

On 1/12/2006 9:32 AM Pacific, louise wrote:
> Leonidas Jones wrote:
>> louise wrote:
>>
<snip>

> Might it be wise to set some limits on the cache settings? 
> And if so, what setting might give me a good balance between 
> FF performance and system performance?
> 
> TIA
> 
> Louise

If you have a broadband connection, you might try setting the FF cache
to zero and see if you experience any significant degradation.

Irwin

-- 
Irwin Greenwald - Mozilla Champion

Etiquette - http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
About Profiles -
http://users.adelphia.net/~irwingreenwald/About%20Profiles.html
OE Quotefix - http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

Irwin Greenwald wrote:
> On 1/12/2006 9:32 AM Pacific, louise wrote:
> 
>>Leonidas Jones wrote:
>>
>>>louise wrote:
>>>
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>Might it be wise to set some limits on the cache settings? 
>>And if so, what setting might give me a good balance between 
>>FF performance and system performance?
>>
>>TIA
>>
>>Louise
> 
> 
> If you have a broadband connection, you might try setting the FF cache
> to zero and see if you experience any significant degradation.
> 
> Irwin
> 
where does one set the ff cache?

Is that just tool/options/privacy/cache?

I thought there was an entry necessary into user.js - and if 
so, I don't seem to have that file.....

Thanks again.

Louise

louise wrote:
> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
> 
>>On 1/12/2006 9:32 AM Pacific, louise wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leonidas Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>louise wrote:
>>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Might it be wise to set some limits on the cache settings? 
>>>And if so, what setting might give me a good balance between 
>>>FF performance and system performance?
>>>
>>>TIA
>>>
>>>Louise
>>
>>
>>If you have a broadband connection, you might try setting the FF cache
>>to zero and see if you experience any significant degradation.
>>
>>Irwin
>>
> 
> where does one set the ff cache?
> 
> Is that just tool/options/privacy/cache?
> 
> I thought there was an entry necessary into user.js - and if 
> so, I don't seem to have that file.....
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Louise
Its the first one.

I reason you can't find the user.js file is because its self created 
file.  That means you create it.

gwtc wrote:
> louise wrote:
> 
>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/12/2006 9:32 AM Pacific, louise wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Leonidas Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> louise wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Might it be wise to set some limits on the cache settings? And if 
>>>> so, what setting might give me a good balance between FF performance 
>>>> and system performance?
>>>>
>>>> TIA
>>>>
>>>> Louise
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you have a broadband connection, you might try setting the FF cache
>>> to zero and see if you experience any significant degradation.
>>>
>>> Irwin
>>>
>>
>> where does one set the ff cache?
>>
>> Is that just tool/options/privacy/cache?
>>
>> I thought there was an entry necessary into user.js - and if so, I 
>> don't seem to have that file.....
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> Louise
> 
> Its the first one.
> 
> I reason you can't find the user.js file is because its self created 
> file.  That means you create it.

Something isn't right....

I just set the tools/options/privacy/cache to 3mb
I cleared the cache
I closed and then reopened FF'
I then started loading booksmarks to see how high memory 
usage would go.
It is now supposedly only caching 3mb but memory usage is at 
150,668k  and climbing..

Perhaps there is a different setting?

TIA

Louise
I

On 1/12/2006 6:46 PM Pacific, louise wrote:
> gwtc wrote:
>> louise wrote:
>>
>>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/12/2006 9:32 AM Pacific, louise wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Leonidas Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> louise wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Might it be wise to set some limits on the cache settings? And if 
>>>>> so, what setting might give me a good balance between FF performance 
>>>>> and system performance?
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA
>>>>>
>>>>> Louise
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you have a broadband connection, you might try setting the FF cache
>>>> to zero and see if you experience any significant degradation.
>>>>
>>>> Irwin
>>>>
>>> where does one set the ff cache?
>>>
>>> Is that just tool/options/privacy/cache?
>>>
>>> I thought there was an entry necessary into user.js - and if so, I 
>>> don't seem to have that file.....
>>>
>>> Thanks again.
>>>
>>> Louise
>> Its the first one.
>>
>> I reason you can't find the user.js file is because its self created 
>> file.  That means you create it.
> 
> Something isn't right....
> 
> I just set the tools/options/privacy/cache to 3mb
> I cleared the cache
> I closed and then reopened FF'
> I then started loading booksmarks to see how high memory 
> usage would go.
> It is now supposedly only caching 3mb but memory usage is at 
> 150,668k  and climbing..
> 
> Perhaps there is a different setting?
> 
> TIA
> 
> Louise
> I
The cache you set to 0 is the disk cache.  Now it is using a memory
cache.  As you close thos tabs, memory will be returned to the system.

Irwin

-- 
Irwin Greenwald - Mozilla Champion

Etiquette - http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
About Profiles -
http://users.adelphia.net/~irwingreenwald/About%20Profiles.html
OE Quotefix - http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

louise wrote:
> gwtc wrote:
> 
>> louise wrote:
>>
>>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/12/2006 9:32 AM Pacific, louise wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Leonidas Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> louise wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Might it be wise to set some limits on the cache settings? And if 
>>>>> so, what setting might give me a good balance between FF 
>>>>> performance and system performance?
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA
>>>>>
>>>>> Louise
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you have a broadband connection, you might try setting the FF cache
>>>> to zero and see if you experience any significant degradation.
>>>>
>>>> Irwin
>>>>
>>>
>>> where does one set the ff cache?
>>>
>>> Is that just tool/options/privacy/cache?
>>>
>>> I thought there was an entry necessary into user.js - and if so, I 
>>> don't seem to have that file.....
>>>
>>> Thanks again.
>>>
>>> Louise
>>
>>
>> Its the first one.
>>
>> I reason you can't find the user.js file is because its self created 
>> file.  That means you create it.
> 
> 
> Something isn't right....
> 
> I just set the tools/options/privacy/cache to 3mb
> I cleared the cache
> I closed and then reopened FF'
> I then started loading booksmarks to see how high memory usage would go.
> It is now supposedly only caching 3mb but memory usage is at 150,668k  
> and climbing..
> 
> Perhaps there is a different setting?
> 
> TIA
> 
> Louise
> I

Louise,
Setting the Option in "Tools/Options/Privacy/Cache/" only sets the 
amount of space on your disk that FF will use to cache previously 
visited web pages.

I am on a 3 Mb DSL connection and have that setting set at "6000"

Type "about:config" into the address box of FF and hit enter. You will 
get a page containing FFs Preferences.
Look for an entry called:

"browser.cache.memory.capacity"

Right click this entry and select "Modify".

You can then enter an amount of memory you wish to limit FF to.
I have mine set to "16000" which is about 16 MBs.

Now, one thing you need to know. This setting "Does Not Limit" all FF 
memory usage on a Windows system to what ever value you set. However, it 
will reduce the amount of physical memory that FF uses.

At this moment on my system, FF is using "93 MBs phisical memory (RAM)" 
and 85 MBs of "Paged Memory". This is with 26 pages (Tabs) opened in FF.

If you Minimise FF to the Taskbar then you will release several MBs of 
the Physical memory back to Windows. The paging file will remain basicly 
unchanged.

For an example, I just minimised FF and in TaskManager I now show FF 
using "5 MBs (RAM) and the same 85 MBs of paged memory".

However, the RAM usage will start to grow even with FF minimised. As FF 
refreshes pages the RAM usage will rise but you will find that the paged 
  memory will stay at basicly the same amount, it may rise or fall a 
small amount.

To release the RAM, Maximise and again Minimise.

There are many people that seem to think that if you minimise a window 
in a Windows OS that the physical memory being used is added to the page 
file. This is Incorrect.

Bottom line is: Set the option I spoke of and the "Total RAM Memory" 
usage will be reduced.

If this does not solve your memory problem then there are other options 
that can be set in Windows, (depending on the version of your OS) to 
help with the usage problem.


-- 
Bill McCartney
Union City, Georgia

E-mail rot 13ed
ovyyzppg@oryyfbhgu.arg