Linux sucks at dealing with OOM situations 😒

Follow

Guess I'll have to upgrade to 96GB of RAM to keep browsing the web, eh? 🙄

@fribbledom

this is because the silicon valley is full of young creative geniuses, dude.

@fribbledom ah, I see you're not planning on watching videos in the browser

@fribbledom I suppose the minimal requirements will tide you over for a few months, but 256 GB and three GPUs are recommended for web browsing.
I've already moved my Chrome instance to an AWS compute center just to be safe

@fribbledom I'm using FreeBSD with 4G RAM and 10G swap. I did have to fiddle with firefox's configuration a little to keep its memory use down, but it works fine now that I have.

@fribbledom talking about filling up RAM with the browser: back in the day first wordpress website I built constantly crashed browsers of the visitors. It worked fine for me though. Turned out I placed some high-quality, raw photos in a gallery on one page which required around 16gb of RAM. No problem for my development maschine though so I didn't notice 😅 Classic.

@carcinopithecus @fribbledom Even now, I don't run out of memory from having 16GB plus 16GB of swap partition. And the swap only becomes heavily used if I do something like render a really complex scene in Blender.

These days, I'd consider 16GB to be a baseline desktop machine, and I'm really mad at Apple for even selling 8GB options at all for their newly launched M1 machines, considering that upgrading is literally impossible because the RAM is embedded in the SoC.

Of course, there's no telling how well it will work out, considering that they got away with selling embedded mobile devices with 1/4 of that or less, but still, these are desktop machines.

I find that Chrome and Chromium stuff tends to eat a good portion of memory, and that every Electron app has its own instance of Chromium or CEF or equivalent, and so does Steam and so does EGS if I use that.

But yeah, at this point, I consider 16GB fairly decent for regular use, and that you should have a swap capacity equivalent to that Just In Case.

@carcinopithecus

Typically between 50 and 100 tabs, probably open for a few days up to two weeks.

@fribbledom @carcinopithecus

well, when I was young my Vic20 was able to do it. It’s perfectly logic to complain about ram usage, while using 50-100 instances of a segregated virtual machine , plus 50-100 instances of a javascript interpreter. Why should you run out of memory? Must be the operating system which sucks….

@loweel

Sigh. Better read the entire thread. It doesn't even really OOM, it freezes at pretty much exactly 80% of memory usage, for minutes to hours.

Yes, sorry, I need that many tabs. That's why I got 64GB of RAM in my machine.

@carcinopithecus

@fribbledom @carcinopithecus

sorry, no. I don’t drink that. You perfectly know that the last trend about browser is segregation of tabls, which implies no shared memory. so each tab , plus a javascript interpreter, requires more or less 1GB. Plus, the OS must cache the filesystem and keep the VMM.

To open 50-100 of those segregated tabs, ~128Gb should be considered.

Now we can discuss how much this browser sucks, or this html engine sucks, but still, is the browser which sucks. Not the OS. The OS is just running on undersized hardware.

In the image below, you can see how much a single tab is taking to write this answer to you, on both browsers.

So your machine is undersized, and linux has a little to do with the fact browsers are horribly inefficient. Yes, with no swap linux will try its best. But, still you want to keep all of the tabs running, none swapped, and you have more sw than RAM.

What you expect?

@loweel

No, sorry, that's totally off, it's a bit laughable. The memory usage of Firefox for all these tabs is 9.2GB.

The only correct answer here would probably be memory fragmentation.

@carcinopithecus

@fribbledom @carcinopithecus

the only thing clear here is you have no clue how memory reservation and VMM works. This means you aren’t able to understand virtual memory a program is using, and you only consider part of it.

About “laughable”, that’s enough for me.

@fribbledom @loweel @carcinopithecus where are you getting the 80% figure? Are you including cache/buffers in the available RAM? I run compute servers at near 100% much of the time and Linux is fine. Have you run memtest , check dmesg , etc. Which desktop environment?

@simon @fribbledom and for those of us who are tab hogs and don't have the option of upgrading to 96Gig of ram(!) there's always The Great Suspender (for Chrome/ium based browsers) chrome.google.com/webstore/det

@fribbledom @loweel @carcinopithecus have you tried disabling swap? It will now fail-fast (and kill Firefox) instead of slowing to a crawl.

@fribbledom @loweel @carcinopithecus sorry, didn’t catch that. Have you tried syslogging to a remote location to understand what’s happening?

@fribbledom @carcinopithecus I've usually 300 tabs going (yes, yes) and 8gb are enough. Something sounds very wrong with your numbers. FF.

@bekopharm

I assume it's memory fragmentation, even though compacting should solve that - to some degree.

The Firefox processes combined use a total of "only" 9.2GB of memory.

@carcinopithecus

@fribbledom @carcinopithecus heh. In that case: running Fedora Workstation here. No idea what kernel and settings this has in detail - it just works™

@fribbledom tbh i'm surprised how far i get with my daily driver, which is 4GB ram + very modest ultramobile SATA ssd swap.

@benoit @fribbledom Ah! Apparently #systemd 247 will integrate oomd, an alternative to earlyoom developed by Facebook:
phoronix.com/scan.php?page=new

I wonder if Fedora will migrate to it? Probably...

@fribbledom bootup will just be 5 minutes of loading the entire hard disk into ram, but hay starting apps could be super fast

@fribbledom I don't know what you have open, but I have no issues multi-tab browsing the web even on my 4GB ancient laptop.

In addition 1GB per tab is not true. When you check your browsers task manager, you will see each page needs max. 100MB (with mastodon using ~90MB right now)

@midzer

No, of course 1GB per tab isn't true. Whoever it was that claimed that nonsense doesn't understand shared resources or memory management on computers all that well.

The baseline of Firefox/Chromium is roughly 350MB, but how much each tab uses very heavily depends on the website it's displaying.

@fribbledom @midzer Over here Firefox currently has 13 processes with a total RSS of about 5.5 GB. That's with 37 tabs, not all of which have been loaded since I started it 2 days ago.

@mansr

Yeah, sounds fairly realistic & average for the current state of browsers.

@midzer

@fribbledom See, that happens when we leave efficient engines and better times like Presto back in the times of Opera 12 (40 tabs in ~300 MB RAM) and move to this god-forsaken WRONG timeline.

@Untersuchende @fribbledom current web engine uses more ram than it should be. Pair that with javascript it'll most likely eats away your ram. (not necessarily javascript, any "client-side" scripting language counts. But i only knew javascript.)

@ravenclaw @fribbledom oh I See. I completely agree. I just didn't get the 96GB bit at first.

@ravenclaw @fribbledom do you know what is going on with site like mega.nz or tutanota? They seem to have heavy JavaScript usage.

@Untersuchende well. I'm against "web app". Because i think any program should be prioritized running natively to get the most of our hardware capability.
And since those sites were definitely classified as a "web app". I definitely avoid those sites.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!