I observe orphaned (unkillable) child processes on a regular basis (once a month or so) that prevent me from updating Chrome until I restart my computer sometimes. Additionally, when this happens, I have noticed definite slowdowns in page rendering and the responsiveness of the browser as a whole.
I've seen this behavior on my two machines: WinXP and Win7 (64-bit).
I have also seen Chrome using an excessive amount of memory on both machines. The reason for this, most of the time, is due to Chrome's design. As I'm sure you're aware, nearly each tab and plugin requires a separate process to allow for features like preventing the closing of the entire browser when a plugin crashes or dragging-and-dropping tabs from/to separate windows, etc. However, this is a trade-off between features vs memory usage, and Chrome's will inherently use more RAM than a browser like Firefox which doesn't follow the same process-spawning design.
This is the most common cause for excessive RAM usage, which could be labeled as user error (you shouldn't have so many tabs open, gosh darnit!!) but this isn't the only cause for Chrome's excessive RAM usage. I've definitely seen big spikes of memory being taken up for individual tabs, without any apparent reason. I've never taken out the time to really investigate the cause of this, but if it's not WebKit memory leaks I'm not sure what makes sense to blame.
Honestly, it has gotten better in the last few releases, but still not up to the bar Firefox 4 just brought it to. That browser just got so fast and lightweight. I switched to Chrome (and have stayed for a while) because I really dig its interface, and it feels fast. But lately, I've been dealing with weird performance issues especially when these unkillable child processes are present. I love Chrome for development though, it's got a really good set of tools right out of the box.
Basically, if Chrome's process spawning stuff was rock solid I would think it's just about perfect, and now I'm starting to think FF4 is getting there faster.
*Note: definitely not trying to start a debate on which browser is better, I use both and I like both, but I was just elaborating on what I had said about performance before.
I've seen this behavior on my two machines: WinXP and Win7 (64-bit).
I have also seen Chrome using an excessive amount of memory on both machines. The reason for this, most of the time, is due to Chrome's design. As I'm sure you're aware, nearly each tab and plugin requires a separate process to allow for features like preventing the closing of the entire browser when a plugin crashes or dragging-and-dropping tabs from/to separate windows, etc. However, this is a trade-off between features vs memory usage, and Chrome's will inherently use more RAM than a browser like Firefox which doesn't follow the same process-spawning design.
This is the most common cause for excessive RAM usage, which could be labeled as user error (you shouldn't have so many tabs open, gosh darnit!!) but this isn't the only cause for Chrome's excessive RAM usage. I've definitely seen big spikes of memory being taken up for individual tabs, without any apparent reason. I've never taken out the time to really investigate the cause of this, but if it's not WebKit memory leaks I'm not sure what makes sense to blame.
Honestly, it has gotten better in the last few releases, but still not up to the bar Firefox 4 just brought it to. That browser just got so fast and lightweight. I switched to Chrome (and have stayed for a while) because I really dig its interface, and it feels fast. But lately, I've been dealing with weird performance issues especially when these unkillable child processes are present. I love Chrome for development though, it's got a really good set of tools right out of the box.
Basically, if Chrome's process spawning stuff was rock solid I would think it's just about perfect, and now I'm starting to think FF4 is getting there faster.
*Note: definitely not trying to start a debate on which browser is better, I use both and I like both, but I was just elaborating on what I had said about performance before.