| |||||||||||||
extensions.gnome.org launchesextensions.gnome.org launchesPosted Dec 2, 2011 15:12 UTC (Fri) by Cato (subscriber, #7643)In reply to: extensions.gnome.org launches by MisterIO Parent article: extensions.gnome.org launches
Chromium uses a lot of RAM with many tabs in my experience - since GNOME 3 is no doubt more RAM intensive than GNOME 2, you may simply be running out of RAM with that many tabs loaded.
(Log in to post comments)
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 2, 2011 16:59 UTC (Fri) by Frej (subscriber, #4165) [Link]
No doubt? Are you sure? I *think* that 3.0 uses less ram (if 'intensive' ~ amount).... But i have no proof.
But neither do you ;)
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 2, 2011 18:21 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
Hmm? My x86_64 CentOS 5 VM runs GNOME 2 in ~300MB. My Rawhide machine is close to ~200MB after booting runlevel 3. My F16 netbook is close to 150MB in the same state. Running X on top of that puts it over the VM's usage and I'm just running xmonad and xmobar. The lowest I've seen with Fedora (13 or 14 FWIW) is ~60MB on an i686 and pretty stripped down (no sendmail, sshd, iptables, etc.).
Now, of course, that's nothing compared to my FreeBSD box which boots in 30MB and rises to 40MB after running its jails which include nginx, postgres, a few fastcgi instances, git-daemon, and musicpd.
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 4, 2011 9:15 UTC (Sun) by Pawlerson (guest, #74136) [Link]
I wouldn't compare Fedora which is full of features to some minimalistic system. I bet you could have even less memory usage with Arch Linux.
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 2, 2011 17:41 UTC (Fri) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link]
I have 12Gb of ram, so ram is definitely not the problem here.
|
|||||||||||||