Mat, This is an interesting subject. I have noticed especially in the case of tiddlywiki a bit of confusion around memory which I do find hard to communicate because it needs people to make a bit of a back flip in their understanding.
A parallel example I just thought of is CPU utilisation, a lot of people concern them-self when their CPU Utilisation is high and this comes from an occasional problem with a run away process consuming too much CPU but in fact this is rare and most of the time it is actually an indication of effective use of the CPU, the best computers would be running at 99% CPU utilisation if there is something to be done. If you have a server that is heavily loaded and its running at 40% utilisation something is very wrong. Now this can be the same as above for memory. But when it comes to browsers and other applications they often set their own internal memory limits so they do not impact the machine they are running on. Just as for the CPU example they could be considered most efficient when using 99% of their memory because they maintain information and code in memory and not on slower disk. From memory, on windows ,Chrome and firefox they limit themselves to 2GB, Now 99% of 2GB is around 2GB so at their most efficient they should be using all 2GB to maintain all they can in memory for performance reasons. If you as one of these browsers to do a lot of work they can not use more than 2GB and use this as best as they can which is efficient for the memory they have access to, but may not be enough to do what you ask of it. [image: browserRAM.png] <about:invalid#zClosurez>Given I now spend a lot of time on the internet and in the browser for TiddlyWiki (often with a dozen wikis at a time) and my computer now has 16GB RAM, I realised the browsers deserved access to more of the computers memory resources. Searching I found the parameters to let the browsers use up to 4GB each (I still have 8GB to spare). By giving more memory I hope they will fully utilise it in response to the browsers demand. See the utilisation image here in. At the time of this graph 5-6 Google Chrome sessions with dozens tabs open, and one firefox with 26 mostly pinned tabs open. Notice how they are not currently consuming all the available memory, they have headroom but are using a lot? This indicates to me I was correct to allocate 4GB to each of them. Of course my setup is also advantaged by SSD if disk is needed. As long as you have the memory available tiddlywiki is a high performance solution because all its resources are in memory tags, title searches, all tiddler names, macros and style sheets exist in the browser/tabs memory allocation. The best approach is to give your browser and tiddlywiki all the resources it needs. In closing Contrary to popular thinking often an application or browser is working at its best when it uses as much of the resource available to it, that it can use. Giving more resources will make it perform better. The higher the memory consumption the better in most circumstances. Mature browsers like Chrome and FireFox do use there resources effectively and are not wasteful. Perhaps you need to give them more memory. Regards Tony On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 3:37:23 AM UTC+10, Mat wrote: > > 113 MB today is almost nothing. ... >> > > I wasn't complaining or anything, just pointing to a TW we're all familiar > with. But I do wonder what it is that affects the memory usage. To name > another example, I'm currently working on a Tw that takes up almost 800 MB > RAM in passive mode, which is what prompted my question. > > <:-) > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/04d30654-ad66-4dec-91a8-9d38bd7482ef%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
