You are killing me chrome

[frederick]

While I agree with, and support the multiple processes when running Chrome, so if a plugin should crash it doesn't crash the whole thing, it makes many of my clients computers so slow. Especially those with only 4GB of RAM (Windows Vista through 8).

For example, this one clients computer is a Windows 7 Laptop, 4GB of Ram, i5 processor. With just the standard boot-up processes running like after a restart or initial boot, Task Manager reports about 1.83GB is being consumed. Say I open Outlook, 2.05GB to 2.06GB is consumed. Now lets open Chrome...:we jump from 2.06 to 2.63GB being consumed, then a gradual climb to 3+GB. Even if I just leave Outlook closed, it will still reach 3+GB on Chrome alone. Keep in mind, I'm not surfing the internet, it's just sitting there on Google.com.

No malware, no viruses.

Letting her work through the day on her laptop, I notice she uses 3 programs the most: Outlook, Excel and Chrome. She opens other applications, but these 3 are just up and running all day long. Chrome is the only one that consumes more than 1GB of RAM in itself and brings her computer to a complete snails pace. We monitored her computers performance for about a week. As well as several other clients as well, and with all of them, Chrome was the resource hog.

Heaven forbid someone opens multiple tabs....Increasing the page-file has done nothing to help. My only guidance I've been able to provide is "install more RAM".

I'm looking for assistance to solve this issue, because the issue is simply that Chrome has become a massive resource hog.

 

[altrenda]

One thing I have discovered is that browsing the modern web uses more resources now with all the added elements on each page.

Did you try Firefox and measure the difference in resource usage? It might be a better fit.

 

[phaZed]

This looks like it fits the bill:

How To Tweak Google Chrome Browser To Use Less Memory

 

[nlinecomputers]

I've given up on chrome and gone back to Firefox.

 

[frederick]

Given the fact that I use Firefox religiously on my computer because I seem to have less issues with it compared to IE and Chrome....with the typical 10+ tabs I have open, and all the things I do with it and have installed...on average it consumes about 500MB, with the peak high I've seen of 750MB (however that was using some of the web editing tools I use for the web site).

With a couple of clients that I've gotten to switch to Firefox because of Chrome being a resource hog, I don't see their systems climbing up and over 3GB with only 4GB installed. However, keeping them on Firefox has been the challenge. Many revert back to Chrome because "it's easier to use".

 

[cypress]

I use Firefox myself and not Chrome, but most of my clients use Chrome. When I ask why they say it was installed, which usually was bundled with Flash or another program. I promptly clean that up and push them towards Firefox.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Any extensions installed? I haven't really sat down and spent time with Chrome on a Win7 or 8 rig with only 4 gigs of RAM, I'd try to avoid sitting down in front of a system with that little RAM in the first place. I'd ask.."What did I do wrong to get punished with this underRAM'd rig?"

But I'm curious if this is a default clean install of Chrome, or does it have extensions.

 

[TechPJC]

Firefox, here, too.

 

[Moltuae]

Something I always do in Chrome now is to uncheck this:

It's checked by default. If you leave it checked, inevitably something in Chrome crashes and continues running in the background indefinitely, even after Chrome has been closed.

 

[ChrisTech]

+1 for Firefox. One of the things I tell my customers is that when I get the disinfection report of a PC, usually Chrome has more malware injections than Firefox.

I'm not saying that Chrome is badly coded, just saying what I see most days.

 

[frederick]

Any extensions installed?

What I consider the usual. Adobe (Flash, Shockwave, Air), Office Note (If I see I disable it), and a few others. Normally nothing crazy unless the computer is infected.

 

[frederick]

Something I always do in Chrome now is to uncheck this:

It's checked by default. If you leave it checked, inevitably something in Chrome crashes and continues running in the background indefinitely, even after Chrome has been closed.

I'll have to give this a try. I do hate how Chrome runs even when Chrome has been closed.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I'll have to give this a try. I do hate how Chrome runs even when Chrome has been closed.

I closed Chrome...waited a minute, brought up task mangler...and only thing remaining was GoogleCrashHandler....two instances of it, 0.3 megs and 0.1 megs each.

Got Chrome open again with a few tabs open doing things...got 13 instances of Chrome in Task Mangler now...from 187 megs for the highest one, 144 megs, and a bunch others fro 35 to 90 megs. Probably totaling from 650 to 700 megs total.

But I gots 16 gigs of rammage in my office rig. RAM is cheap, and I like to get my moneys worth.

 

[frederick]

But I gots 16 gigs of rammage in my office rig. RAM is cheap, and I like to get my moneys worth.

That's what our office systems are running with. When you might have 2 or 3 remote sessions going on at once, plus file transfers, and everything else, we can hit 50-60% on a good day. Knowing there is lots more wiggle room really helps. Whats the CPU you are using? Currently we have AMD FX-8150 8-Cores (3.6GHz) in ours, rarely do we actually go above 80% utilization for any real period of time.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Just an i5-3470....3.2 GHz quad core. I don't do much that pushes the CPU on this rig.
Got 4x tabs, and 3x remote sessions at the moment, Outlook, Lync with chat window....averaging about 3% CPU ute.

 

[frederick]

At least you have more than 2-cores. I could never go below a quad core again. Having at least 4-cores, to me, feels like the computer runs a lot smoother.

But back to the main discussion, the issue is with client systems. We are going to be contacting the bulk of them with this issue today and see if they might be interested in a memory upgrade. 4GB is what I tell people is the minimum, 8GB is our recommendation (with most clients). If I could, I'd make everyone buy 8+ GB of RAM.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

At least you have more than 2-cores. I could never go below a quad core again. Having at least 4-cores, to me, feels like the computer runs a lot smoother.

But back to the main discussion, the issue is with client systems. We are going to be contacting the bulk of them with this issue today and see if they might be interested in a memory upgrade. 4GB is what I tell people is the minimum, 8GB is our recommendation (with most clients). If I could, I'd make everyone buy 8+ GB of RAM.

Agreed...
...and...Agreed. When we quote systems, 8 gigs is the default for desktops/laptops. More for power users. I will not quote a 4 gig system unless someone is REALLY pushing very hard for a tight budget and I make it very clear that it should only be for "light" users. And then I warn them of performance issues.

For onboarding existing users...part of our strong recommendations is to upgrade RAM of existing systems to bring them to 8.

I just don't see trying to make systems work with less than 4 gigs of RAM. Windows 7 on 2 gigs...ugh.
Just a month or so ago our main tech guy was rebuilding 2x different Win7 systems...fresh nuke 'n pave...and the first or second round of Microsoft updates...they started hanging at "Insufficient memory" errors...and hung. Nothing else installed yet...nothing! Freshly hatched Windows.

 

[NJW]

Just a month or so ago our main tech guy was rebuilding 2x different Win7 systems...fresh nuke 'n pave...and the first or second round of Microsoft updates...they started hanging at "Insufficient memory" errors...and hung. Nothing else installed yet...nothing! Freshly hatched Windows.

I respectfully suggest that you have an issue other than insufficient RAM. I have never seen that error when installing updates on a clean Windows 7 (usually on less than 4 GB).

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I respectfully suggest that you have an issue other than insufficient RAM. I have never seen that error when installing updates on a clean Windows 7 (usually on less than 4 GB).

Nope..more than several times. Brand new spanking clean install, healthy systems. I think 1 system was 1 gig of RAM, quite sure the other one had 2 gigs. Either way...I'd rather pull my fingernails out with pliers 1 by 1 than sit down in front of a system with that little RAM. Even without those errors during the build, pure excruciation trying to move around and run programs in them. There's no way anyone could convince me 2 gigs is fine for Win7.

 

[frederick]

There's no way anyone could convince me 2 gigs is fine for Win7.

Exactly. Even if say only <50% of the RAM is being used on a 4GB system, moving it up to 8GB makes that computer smoother and faster, and less prone to problems down the road.

they started hanging at "Insufficient memory" errors...and hung.

I have never seen that error when installing updates on a clean Windows 7 (usually on less than 4 GB)

With systems running under 4GB of memory, and under 4GB of virtual, we encounter this issue. I never trust Windows to manage virtual memory properly, this is why my standing order in the shop is this:

• If <= 4GB, Virtual Memory (min) = Total Memory Installed + 2048 [OR] 4096 (Which ever is higher), and Virtual Memory (max) = Total Memory Installed + 4096 [OR] 6144 (which ever is higher)
  
• If > 4GB but < 8GB, Virtual Memory (min) = 8192, and Virtual Memory (max) = 10240
• If => 8GB but < 16GB, Virtual Memory (min) = Total Memory Installed + 2048, and Virtual Memory (max) = Total Memory Installed + 5120
• If => 16GB but < 32GB, Virtual Memory (min) = 8192, and Virtual Memory (max) = Total Memory Installed
• If > 32GB, Virtual Memory (min) = 12288, and Virtual Memory (max) = Total Memory Installed

I don't have performance problems that are because of insufficient memory with the above. What YeOlde is saying I have had happen, and it has been because of the system managed virtual memory in most cases. It sets the bar too low, and when it comes time to raise the bar of virtual memory available, it can't do it fast enough, and therefore the computer ends up running out of memory before it can virtualize more.

My formulas get a little more complex, and I do have a nice print out of what the desktop computer is for, how much memory it has installed, etc. But these are my starting points for general purpose computers. But as you reach 32GB of RAM or more, you are better off having an SSD to play the role of virtual memory for your computer. I've done a few of those, and because of the speeds of an SSD, its more like just adding more RAM than using a HDD for "RAM". But watch the size of your SSD, and don't use it for anything else of course. Otherwise you defeat it's purpose.