One weird thing (for me) when looking at that memory tree ... 2,604.38 MB (100.0%) -- explicit ├──2,165.71 MB (83.16%) -- window-objects │ ├────105.59 MB (04.05%) -- top(https://www.youtube.com $ grep -P top.*youtube.com/ temp3.txt | sed 's/─/ /g' | awk '{SUM+=$3}END{print SUM}' 2151.32 This one was basically all youtube shorts. But he was only watching one. $ grep -P top.*youtube.com/ temp3.txt | wc -l 26 26 were active though. I'll check again to see if it gets worse, but it could simply be that youtube is simply creating many many many videos in their infinite scroller and never cleaning up. Perhaps they are relying on a browser optimisation they added to chrome (i.e. - alternate browser hostile youtube again) or perhaps it's bad in all browsers, or perhaps Firefox just burns more ram for off-screen shorts. I know that Firefox years back added optimisations to unload images on large pages that weren't visible. Perhaps chrome does something similar but for these vids.
Bug 1837553 Comment 28 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
One weird thing (for me) when looking at that memory tree ... 2,604.38 MB (100.0%) -- explicit ├──2,165.71 MB (83.16%) -- window-objects │ ├────105.59 MB (04.05%) -- top(https://www.youtube.com Snipping out only that section and counting it... $ grep -P top.*youtube.com/ temp3.txt | sed 's/─/ /g' | awk '{SUM+=$3}END{print SUM}' 2151.32 This one was basically all youtube shorts. But he was only watching one. $ grep -P top.*youtube.com/ temp3.txt | wc -l 26 26 were active though. I'll check again to see if it gets worse, but it could simply be that youtube is simply creating many many many videos in their infinite scroller and never cleaning up. Perhaps they are relying on a browser optimisation they added to chrome (i.e. - alternate browser hostile youtube again) or perhaps it's bad in all browsers, or perhaps Firefox just burns more ram for off-screen shorts. I know that Firefox years back added optimisations to unload images on large pages that weren't visible. Perhaps chrome does something similar but for these vids.
One weird thing (for me) when looking at that memory tree ... 2,604.38 MB (100.0%) -- explicit ├──2,165.71 MB (83.16%) -- window-objects │ ├────105.59 MB (04.05%) -- top(https://www.youtube.com Snipping out only that section and counting it... $ grep -P top.*youtube.com/ temp3.txt | sed 's/─/ /g' | awk '{SUM+=$3}END{print SUM}' 2151.32 This one was basically all youtube shorts. But he was only watching one. $ grep -P top.*youtube.com/ temp3.txt | wc -l 26 26 were active though. I'll check again to see if it gets worse, but it could simply be that youtube is simply creating many many many videos in their infinite scroller and never cleaning up. It might be I thought it was happening without scrolling but he was scrolling sometimes when I wasn't looking... Perhaps they are relying on a browser optimisation they added to chrome (i.e. - alternate browser hostile youtube again) or perhaps it's bad in all browsers, or perhaps Firefox just burns more ram for off-screen shorts. I know that Firefox years back added optimisations to unload images on large pages that weren't visible. Perhaps chrome does something similar but for these vids.
One weird thing (for me) when looking at that memory tree ... 2,604.38 MB (100.0%) -- explicit ├──2,165.71 MB (83.16%) -- window-objects │ ├────105.59 MB (04.05%) -- top(https://www.youtube.com Snipping out only that section and counting it... $ grep -P top.*youtube.com/ temp3.txt | sed 's/─/ /g' | awk '{SUM+=$3}END{print SUM}' 2151.32 This one was basically all youtube shorts. But he was only watching one. $ grep -P top.*youtube.com/ temp3.txt | wc -l 26 26 were active though. I'll check again to see if it gets worse, but it could simply be that youtube is simply creating many many many videos in their infinite scroller (in iframes?) and never cleaning up. It might be I thought it was happening without scrolling but he was scrolling sometimes when I wasn't looking... Perhaps they are relying on a browser optimisation they added to chrome (i.e. - alternate browser hostile youtube again) or perhaps it's bad in all browsers, or perhaps Firefox just burns more ram for off-screen shorts. I know that Firefox years back added optimisations to unload images on large pages that weren't visible. Perhaps chrome does something similar but for these vids.