Seamonkey DOES have a MEMORY LEAK!

[Crackles McFarly]

People keep saying it doesn't, why they say this is beyond me.

EXAMPLE: Load Seamonkey. Now open 10 tabs. Now open 10 websites that
have JAVA or FLASH that reloads information to the browser.
A GOOD example is a site that updates a RADAR image every 6 minutes.

CTRL-ALT-DEL, take note of the memory seamonkey is using.

Wait 12 hours

CTRL-ALT-DEL, notice the memory seamonkey is using. Compare to your
initial reading.

I personally went from 40MB to 445MB in less than 24 hours.
What did I do to get it to go that high?

I have 7 tabs open, each one reloaded a java-based radar loop every 6
minutes. This is not something that "should" cause a memory leak but
it does.

SOMEONE actually said seamonkey has no memory leak, then said the old
favorite BUT and mentioned Java.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU DO BECAUSE A MEMORY LEAK IS A MEMORY LEAK!
Stop arguing that it doesn't have a memory leak, it's well-known.

Hell Google finds more than 100,000 results for "memory leak" +
seamonkey.

I'm not alone.

Also, not every has a 6GB capable motherboard nor the money to just
but 6GB of ram sticks to use mozilla-based or other browsers.

Yeah, save the speech I know I didn't PAY for seamonkey, it's free,
really are you sure?

As more memory is taken the OS forces more onto the Pagefile which
slows the computer to a crawl [unless you have a hard drive that is AS
FAST as ram?]

SOLUTION:Load Seamonkey with my fav tabs. Every 3-4 hours KILL
seamonkey and re-open repeat. Of course BEDTIME presents a problem of
it going over 4 hours.


It's like a bullet proof vest. It prevents the penetration of a known
type of bullet. Suddenly I shoot the vest with armor piercing bullets,
wham straight through. Then I do an exploding tipped bullet[yes they
make them], wham straight through the jacket.

So a bullet proof vest should be called a "lowered-penetrating bullet
proof vest"

Same goes for "bullet proof glass", we all know it is NOT true.


Please, don't tell me Seamonkey doesn't have a memory leak.
Ok, now you can argue about THIS TOPIC with yourselves I guess.

p.s. I tried to have a conversation about this a few weeks ago in a
civil manner but then I got the "you don't know RAPUTERS, LAWL"

anyway, children.

[Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo]

Post by Crackles McFarly
People keep saying it doesn't, why they say this is beyond me.
EXAMPLE: Load Seamonkey. Now open 10 tabs. Now open 10 websites that
have JAVA or FLASH that reloads information to the browser.
A GOOD example is a site that updates a RADAR image every 6 minutes.
CTRL-ALT-DEL, take note of the memory seamonkey is using.
Wait 12 hours
CTRL-ALT-DEL, notice the memory seamonkey is using. Compare to your
initial reading.
I personally went from 40MB to 445MB in less than 24 hours.
What did I do to get it to go that high?
I have 7 tabs open, each one reloaded a java-based radar loop every 6
minutes. This is not something that "should" cause a memory leak but
it does.
SOMEONE actually said seamonkey has no memory leak, then said the old
favorite BUT and mentioned Java.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU DO BECAUSE A MEMORY LEAK IS A MEMORY LEAK!
Stop arguing that it doesn't have a memory leak, it's well-known.
Hell Google finds more than 100,000 results for "memory leak" +
seamonkey.
I'm not alone.
Also, not every has a 6GB capable motherboard nor the money to just
but 6GB of ram sticks to use mozilla-based or other browsers.
Yeah, save the speech I know I didn't PAY for seamonkey, it's free,
really are you sure?
As more memory is taken the OS forces more onto the Pagefile which
slows the computer to a crawl [unless you have a hard drive that is AS
FAST as ram?]
SOLUTION:Load Seamonkey with my fav tabs. Every 3-4 hours KILL
seamonkey and re-open repeat. Of course BEDTIME presents a problem of
it going over 4 hours.
It's like a bullet proof vest. It prevents the penetration of a known
type of bullet. Suddenly I shoot the vest with armor piercing bullets,
wham straight through. Then I do an exploding tipped bullet[yes they
make them], wham straight through the jacket.
So a bullet proof vest should be called a "lowered-penetrating bullet
proof vest"
Same goes for "bullet proof glass", we all know it is NOT true.
Please, don't tell me Seamonkey doesn't have a memory leak.
Ok, now you can argue about THIS TOPIC with yourselves I guess.
p.s. I tried to have a conversation about this a few weeks ago in a
civil manner but then I got the "you don't know RAPUTERS, LAWL"
anyway, children.

SeaMonkey isn't really causing the so-called memory leak.
Java intensive sites cause it, flash intensive sites will
cause it, having lots of tabs open will cause it, poorly
written extensions will cause it. Using audio/video
programs will cause this problem.

[Graham]

Post by Crackles McFarly
People keep saying it doesn't, why they say this is beyond me.
EXAMPLE: Load Seamonkey. Now open 10 tabs. Now open 10 websites that
have JAVA or FLASH that reloads information to the browser.
A GOOD example is a site that updates a RADAR image every 6 minutes.
CTRL-ALT-DEL, take note of the memory seamonkey is using.
Wait 12 hours
CTRL-ALT-DEL, notice the memory seamonkey is using. Compare to your
initial reading.
I personally went from 40MB to 445MB in less than 24 hours.
What did I do to get it to go that high?
I have 7 tabs open, each one reloaded a java-based radar loop every 6
minutes. This is not something that "should" cause a memory leak but
it does.
SOMEONE actually said seamonkey has no memory leak, then said the old
favorite BUT and mentioned Java.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU DO BECAUSE A MEMORY LEAK IS A MEMORY LEAK!
Stop arguing that it doesn't have a memory leak, it's well-known.
Hell Google finds more than 100,000 results for "memory leak" +
seamonkey.
I'm not alone.
Also, not every has a 6GB capable motherboard nor the money to just
but 6GB of ram sticks to use mozilla-based or other browsers.
Yeah, save the speech I know I didn't PAY for seamonkey, it's free,
really are you sure?
As more memory is taken the OS forces more onto the Pagefile which
slows the computer to a crawl [unless you have a hard drive that is AS
FAST as ram?]
SOLUTION:Load Seamonkey with my fav tabs. Every 3-4 hours KILL
seamonkey and re-open repeat. Of course BEDTIME presents a problem of
it going over 4 hours.

None of this proves Seamonkey has a memory leak. A leak is memory which
is allocated and not freed when it isn't required any more. What you are
observing does not prove this is the case. It may well be occuring, but
you have not provided proof, and not even proved it is Seamonkey that is
responsible for the growth.

In case you are not aware, Java does not rely on memory being explicitly
freed. Instead it uses garbage collection. It is in the nature of a Java
program to grow over time, then to shrink periodically when garbage
collection takes place. This is not a leak.

You've also not said which memory number you are looking at. This is
significant because in a virtual memory system (like Windows or Linux),
a program has at least two memory numbers, one matters more than the
other. One is the total amount a program has allocated (this one is
usually less important), the other is the working set (what it needs to
actually run).

Graham.

[Crackles McFarly]

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:35:05 -0700, Graham

Post by Graham

Post by Crackles McFarly
People keep saying it doesn't, why they say this is beyond me.
EXAMPLE: Load Seamonkey. Now open 10 tabs. Now open 10 websites that
have JAVA or FLASH that reloads information to the browser.
A GOOD example is a site that updates a RADAR image every 6 minutes.
CTRL-ALT-DEL, take note of the memory seamonkey is using.
Wait 12 hours
CTRL-ALT-DEL, notice the memory seamonkey is using. Compare to your
initial reading.
I personally went from 40MB to 445MB in less than 24 hours.
What did I do to get it to go that high?
I have 7 tabs open, each one reloaded a java-based radar loop every 6
minutes. This is not something that "should" cause a memory leak but
it does.
SOMEONE actually said seamonkey has no memory leak, then said the old
favorite BUT and mentioned Java.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU DO BECAUSE A MEMORY LEAK IS A MEMORY LEAK!
Stop arguing that it doesn't have a memory leak, it's well-known.
Hell Google finds more than 100,000 results for "memory leak" +
seamonkey.
I'm not alone.
Also, not every has a 6GB capable motherboard nor the money to just
but 6GB of ram sticks to use mozilla-based or other browsers.
Yeah, save the speech I know I didn't PAY for seamonkey, it's free,
really are you sure?
As more memory is taken the OS forces more onto the Pagefile which
slows the computer to a crawl [unless you have a hard drive that is AS
FAST as ram?]
SOLUTION:Load Seamonkey with my fav tabs. Every 3-4 hours KILL
seamonkey and re-open repeat. Of course BEDTIME presents a problem of
it going over 4 hours.

None of this proves Seamonkey has a memory leak. A leak is memory which
is allocated and not freed when it isn't required any more. What you are
observing does not prove this is the case. It may well be occuring, but
you have not provided proof, and not even proved it is Seamonkey that is
responsible for the growth.
In case you are not aware, Java does not rely on memory being explicitly
freed. Instead it uses garbage collection. It is in the nature of a Java
program to grow over time, then to shrink periodically when garbage
collection takes place. This is not a leak.
You've also not said which memory number you are looking at. This is
significant because in a virtual memory system (like Windows or Linux),
a program has at least two memory numbers, one matters more than the
other. One is the total amount a program has allocated (this one is
usually less important), the other is the working set (what it needs to
actually run).
Graham.

So just ignore that 500% increase in memory in the task manager for
the "seamonkey.exe" entry.

Ok, thanks...

[Graham]

Post by Crackles McFarly
So just ignore that 500% increase in memory in the task manager for
the "seamonkey.exe" entry.

Unless you have some tangible symptom of a shortage of memory (and not
just a number which could be meaningless), yes.

Graham.

[Crackles McFarly]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:29:02 -0700, Graham

Post by Graham

Post by Crackles McFarly
So just ignore that 500% increase in memory in the task manager for
the "seamonkey.exe" entry.

Unless you have some tangible symptom of a shortage of memory (and not
just a number which could be meaningless), yes.
Graham.

Ok, so task manager misreports memory usage by 400-500% frequently..

ok, yeah, ok thanks

[Graham]

Post by Crackles McFarly
Ok, so task manager misreports memory usage by 400-500% frequently..

No, but your interpretation of what it reports is faulty.

Graham.

[Crackles McFarly]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:02:00 -0700, Graham

Post by Graham

Post by Crackles McFarly
Ok, so task manager misreports memory usage by 400-500% frequently..

No, but your interpretation of what it reports is faulty.
Graham.

So my interpretation of the "memory used" for "seamonkey" is wrong but
all other things listed in task manager is correct?

I need a copy of that algorithm please. I need to calculate the proper
amount of memory being used by seamonkey in task manager.

I guess Microsoft didn't anticipate Seamonkey and that's why it
reports it wrong by 400-500%..

Don't forget to send me the Algorithm.

thanks.....

[Graham]

Post by Crackles McFarly
So my interpretation of the "memory used" for "seamonkey" is wrong but
all other things listed in task manager is correct?

You have clearly paid no attention to, or maybe just failed to
understand, what was explained previously about memory usage.

Let's try a simple analogy. Your toe hurts. You conclude it is broken.
The doctor x-rays it, says it isn't broken. You say, it hurts so it must
be broken. Your logic is faulty: just because your toe hurts does not
mean your toe is broken, there are a number of other possible explanations.

Similarly, just because Task Manger is reporting x amount used, does not
mean Seamonkey has a leak - and that's even ignoring the fact that as
has been pointed out to you several times, you are running other things
in Seamonkey, all of which have their own memory usage.

You can carry on beating this to death, but you have not proved
Seamonkey has a leak, and applying faulty logic won't prove it has.

Graham.

[John A.]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:46:37 -0700, Graham

Post by Graham

Post by Crackles McFarly
So my interpretation of the "memory used" for "seamonkey" is wrong but
all other things listed in task manager is correct?

You have clearly paid no attention to, or maybe just failed to
understand, what was explained previously about memory usage.
Let's try a simple analogy. Your toe hurts. You conclude it is broken.
The doctor x-rays it, says it isn't broken. You say, it hurts so it must
be broken. Your logic is faulty: just because your toe hurts does not
mean your toe is broken, there are a number of other possible explanations.
Similarly, just because Task Manger is reporting x amount used, does not
mean Seamonkey has a leak - and that's even ignoring the fact that as
has been pointed out to you several times, you are running other things
in Seamonkey, all of which have their own memory usage.
You can carry on beating this to death, but you have not proved
Seamonkey has a leak, and applying faulty logic won't prove it has.
Graham.

Let's, then, change the assertion from "Seamonkey has a memory leak"
to "Seamonkey is a memory hog."

Is that more semantically accurate?

[Graham]

Post by John A.
Let's, then, change the assertion from "Seamonkey has a memory leak"
to "Seamonkey is a memory hog."
Is that more semantically accurate?

Not really for two reasons. First there remains the fact that other
things like Java and Flash are being used in Seamonkey, and no-one has
demonstrated that it is Seamonkey allocating the large amounts of memory
seen rather than the plugins or add-ons which are in use. Second, the
memory allocated and what is needed for it to run are not the same; you
can't call it a memory hog unless it has an unusually large working set
in a relatively constrained environment.

As I said in my first post in this thread, it may well be that Seamonkey
has a memory leak, and to you I'd also say that it may well be that
Seamonkey is a memory hog. What we've not got is anything which actually
proves it.

What's needed is *proof* that a problem exists and a repeatable scenario
which provides that proof. Given that, it could (and most likely would)
be fixed. Simply seeing large amounts of memory allocated in a Seamonkey
environment which includes use of Java etc. is a long way short of
proof, and that's why there is nothing to fix - yet.

Graham.

[Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo]

Post by Graham

Post by John A.
Let's, then, change the assertion from "Seamonkey has a memory leak"
to "Seamonkey is a memory hog."
Is that more semantically accurate?

Not really for two reasons. First there remains the fact that other
things like Java and Flash are being used in Seamonkey, and no-one has
demonstrated that it is Seamonkey allocating the large amounts of memory
seen rather than the plugins or add-ons which are in use. Second, the
memory allocated and what is needed for it to run are not the same; you
can't call it a memory hog unless it has an unusually large working set
in a relatively constrained environment.
As I said in my first post in this thread, it may well be that Seamonkey
has a memory leak, and to you I'd also say that it may well be that
Seamonkey is a memory hog. What we've not got is anything which actually
proves it.
What's needed is *proof* that a problem exists and a repeatable scenario
which provides that proof. Given that, it could (and most likely would)
be fixed. Simply seeing large amounts of memory allocated in a Seamonkey
environment which includes use of Java etc. is a long way short of
proof, and that's why there is nothing to fix - yet.
Graham.

I can't remember if I've said this in the thread or not, but
there are several factors to consider when one thinks SM is
a memory hog or has a memory leak. Plugins can be a major
culprit, such as flash, wmp, qt, and others. Extensions can
cause it such as flash block and adblock. See this for more
info on that:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Problematic_extensions. Using the
forward and backwards button excessivly can cause problems.
Not cleaning up the Download History can add to the
problems. Using the Restore Session option can cause it.

For more info on memory leaks you can read this:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Reducing_memory_usage_-_Firefox

[Crackles McFarly]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:40:21 -0700, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo

Post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo

Post by Graham

Post by John A.
Let's, then, change the assertion from "Seamonkey has a memory leak"
to "Seamonkey is a memory hog."
Is that more semantically accurate?

Not really for two reasons. First there remains the fact that other
things like Java and Flash are being used in Seamonkey, and no-one has
demonstrated that it is Seamonkey allocating the large amounts of memory
seen rather than the plugins or add-ons which are in use. Second, the
memory allocated and what is needed for it to run are not the same; you
can't call it a memory hog unless it has an unusually large working set
in a relatively constrained environment.
As I said in my first post in this thread, it may well be that Seamonkey
has a memory leak, and to you I'd also say that it may well be that
Seamonkey is a memory hog. What we've not got is anything which actually
proves it.
What's needed is *proof* that a problem exists and a repeatable scenario
which provides that proof. Given that, it could (and most likely would)
be fixed. Simply seeing large amounts of memory allocated in a Seamonkey
environment which includes use of Java etc. is a long way short of
proof, and that's why there is nothing to fix - yet.
Graham.

I can't remember if I've said this in the thread or not, but
there are several factors to consider when one thinks SM is
a memory hog or has a memory leak. Plugins can be a major
culprit, such as flash, wmp, qt, and others. Extensions can
cause it such as flash block and adblock. See this for more
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Problematic_extensions. Using the
forward and backwards button excessivly can cause problems.
Not cleaning up the Download History can add to the
problems. Using the Restore Session option can cause it.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Reducing_memory_usage_-_Firefox

OK I GET IT NOW!

It wasn't the faulty bridge work that brought down the bridge it was
all those God damn cars on it all the time!!!!!!!!

Planes also fall from the sky from the extra weight of people.

etc...


With this line of defense, microsoft should be able to hire [1] lawyer
for the next anti-trust lawsuit.

[r***@gmail.com]

Yes SeaMonkey and Firefox have severe memory leakage, it will eventually crash your system. I have seen no solutionsuch yet.

[Ant]

Post by r***@gmail.com
Yes SeaMonkey and Firefox have severe memory leakage, it will eventually crash your system. I have seen no solutionsuch yet.

Yep for leaks, but crashes? No. We just have to live with them. Restart
our web browsers when things get really bad! I hope upcoming versions
will fix it. I think current Firefox's Quantum versions do much better
with resources. Also, Chrome has the same problem. :(
--
"Ants can destroy a tree. Therefore this ant can destroy a tree."
--Logic & Fallacy
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see
this signature correctly.
/\___/\ If crediting, then use Ant nickname and URL/link.
/ /\ /\ \ Axe ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.
| |o o| | http://antfarm.ma.cx / http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
\ _ /
( )