Hi John,

I wonder if this is just an issue with how Firefox does garbage collection.

Can you try navigating to about:memory and clicking the "GC" button?  The
web UI's definitely should not need that much memory.

~Joseph

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:07 AM, John Omernik <[email protected]> wrote:

> I am cross posting this in Marathon and Mesos lists because both UIs are
> having this issue, and I figured I'd save time in posting two separate
> messages.
>
> Basically, in using Firefox, I noticed that over time, my firefox would
> get to become unusable when I had Marathon and Mesos WebUIs up and
> running.  At first, I thought it was a function of my home (Mac) computer
> and firefox. But when I started a PoC for work, and my Windows install of
> firefox had the same issues, I started doing more investigation.
>
> First of all, both at home and at work, my Firefox is only dedicated to
> "cluster" related tasks. Thus, I don't have other tabs that are not Cluster
> UIs.
>
> My typical setup is to have MapR UI, Mesos UI, Marathon UI, Chronos UI,
> Myriad UI, and Yarn UI all up and running.
>
> After about 3-4 hours, my browser would get really slow, and
> non-responsive. I'd kill all and start again.  Rinse repeat.
>
> So I did some analysis, and basically found a plugin for Firefox that
> shows on each tab the amount of memory being used. I found that both
> Marathon and Mesos UI were the culprits, and things got really bad after
> just 2-3 hours.  With those setup, on Windows, I have the following memory
> usage:
>
> MapR UI: 7.7mb
> Myriad UI: 9.8mb
> Yarn: 2.7 mb
> Chronos 10.2 mb
> Marathon: 163 mb
> Mesos UI: 463 mb
>
> Both Marathon and Mesos continually climb, slowly, up some, down a few, up
> some more, but obviously generally trending up.  I guess I wanted to toss
> it out here to see if it's something in my settings, or something that
> others are seeing.  It's a problem for me from a usability standpoint, and
> I am guessing that it's one of those things that while not a priority for a
> project, should be looked at.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to