Opera eating up lots of RAM

Opera eating up lots of RAM

operaactingweird.png

Hello,

Just curious whether this is happening only with my computer or Opera generally eats up a lot of RAM. In the attached image Opera is using 300MB of my RAM!!! What is this supposed to mean?

Originally posted by Pesala:

There may be, but if there is, useless threads like this or even more useless polls, won't help to discover the bugs that do cause memory leaks. Vague and unsupported comments about "huge memory use" without any info about installed RAM, number of tabs open, etc., don't help anyone.

i think that's a good point. may be users should report how much memory is used as a percentage of installed memory.

however, i've been following this thread closely and a lot of people who have concerns reports that memory is not released when tabs are closed. high memory usage might even be acceptable but if memory isn't released when tabs are closed, it keeps on adding up.

hello, i didn't know where exactly to post this so I'm doing it here because of many replies, I've always been a fan of Opera but there are small problems that I had and still have with Opera even on the new version 10.60 that are really annoying me, for example on Facebook you can't see a Heart as a Heart it's only a empty cube shown while in Chrome or Firefox it's a Heart visible.
That is truly a small problem but still it's annoying me and pushes me to Google Chrome more and more, so I would be really thankful if someone could help me or give me the link of the topic where I can find the Answers about my Question because I don't want to leave Opera as my Browser!

thx

Originally posted by Almirf84:

I would be really thankful if someone could help me or give me the link of the topic where I can find the Answers about my Question

http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=165474

Originally posted by rushad0:

that surely isn't encouraging to call your product users ignorant. all concerns and comments should be treated with respect.

Opera isn't my product, and you still can't get away from the fact that THIS VERY THREAD shows the extreme ignorance out there. I even pointed out how the FIRST POST in this thread gets it wrong. There is nothing wrong with the memory usage shown in the first post.

obviously there is 'something' wrong with memory usage or memory management in Opera. otherwise, there wouldn't be so much interest in this forum thread.

I have already explained that MOST OF THESE CASES ARE NOT VALID. How many times do I have to repeat myself? It doesn't matter if a million people posted in this thread if most of them weren't actually having problems! People just THINK they hare having problems. Like the GUY WHO STARTED THE THREAD.

Originally posted by rushad0:

i've been following this thread closely and a lot of people who have concerns reports that memory is not released when tabs are closed

That's how Opera is designed! It isn't SUPPOSED to. It's SUPPOSED to keep tabs in memory to do things like allow you to reopen closed tabs and continue where you left off.

high memory usage might even be acceptable but if memory isn't released when tabs are closed, it keeps on adding up.

The memory isn't released RIGHT AWAY because Opera keeps stuff in memory to INCREASE PERFORMANCE. It's released eventually.

Originally posted by prd3:

That's how Opera is designed! It isn't SUPPOSED to. It's SUPPOSED to keep tabs in memory to do things like allow you to reopen closed tabs and continue where you left off.

thank you very much... but firefox also has the same feature without being a memory hog.

Originally posted by prd3:

The memory isn't released RIGHT AWAY because Opera keeps stuff in memory to INCREASE PERFORMANCE. It's released eventually.

who says? which developer said ever this? seems more like your opinion. please provide references and stay polite. using caps comes out as being rude

if people have concern, we should listen and offer solutions when possible.

Originally posted by rushad0:

Originally posted by prd3:

That's how Opera is designed! It isn't SUPPOSED to. It's SUPPOSED to keep tabs in memory to do things like allow you to reopen closed tabs and continue where you left off.

thank you very much... but firefox also has the same feature without being a memory hog.

Originally posted by prd3:

The memory isn't released RIGHT AWAY because Opera keeps stuff in memory to INCREASE PERFORMANCE. It's released eventually.

who says? which developer said ever this? seems more like your opinion. please provide references and stay polite. using caps comes out as being rude

if people have concern, we should listen and offer solutions when possible.

You people are all so rude and defensive.

Yes Opera eats RAM, but not everyone can whip up cash to get a new system/RAM like that. When he's ready he'll get a new system. He was just asking what was going on.

The trouble I have is that when Opera writes something from the RAM to the Virtual Memory, it won't get released from the Virtual Memory. So I end up with Opera using 1.2+ GB of Virtual Memory, the computer locks up every few seconds, and Windows pops up a warning that there isn't enough virtual memory to operate. So I have to restart Opera which takes up to a half hour. This isn't me leaving the browser open for weeks or days by the way, this happens in a matter of hours.

I've submitted a couple bug reports for different things related to this but since I never get a response from the developers and the bug system is closed, I have no clue if my bug reports are useful enough.

Originally posted by Astrophizz:

The trouble I have is that when Opera writes something from the RAM to the Virtual Memory, it won't get released from the Virtual Memory. So I end up with Opera using 1.2+ GB of Virtual Memory, the computer locks up every few seconds, and Windows pops up a warning that there isn't enough virtual memory to operate. So I have to restart Opera which takes up to a half hour. This isn't me leaving the browser open for weeks or days by the way, this happens in a matter of hours.

This is what most user here complaining about, & it doesn't seem to be a hardware problem because a software is not suppose to holding unused memory in VM for hours & never released 'em. Also, I use the command to Clear List of Closed Tabs to empty the closed tabs history, yet Opera still holding a ton of VM in hostage...

Originally posted by Astrophizz:

I've submitted a couple bug reports for different things related to this but since I never get a response from the developers and the bug system is closed, I have no clue if my bug reports are useful enough.

I think they are still working on it, read this changelog for details: http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2010/08/02/second-release-candidate-for-10-61

Like many people here, my problem with opera is also the virtual memory that doesn't get released. It doesn't happen to me in a matter of hours like some, but it's probably because I never play videos on this computer. Still, I can't let opera open longer than a day or 2 because it will completely fill up my RAM and start using pagefiles which renders the computer almost unusable.

I also thought at first that the memory was all the closed tabs, so when I found the menu to clear the list of closed tabs, I said to myself, "Finally my problem will be solved", but no, the VM size doesn't even go down a little when I clear it. I'm left with the same problem and I lost the ability to use ctrl-z to recover all the closed tabs until now.

I've seen the VM size go down a MB or 2, maybe 3 once in a while if I do nothing, but never an amount that would make opera usable again without having to close it.

Hopefully the memory issues that were fixed will help with this, but this problem has been present for so long that I'm not very hopeful anymore.

Originally posted by rushad0:

Originally posted by prd3:

That's how Opera is designed! It isn't SUPPOSED to. It's SUPPOSED to keep tabs in memory to do things like allow you to reopen closed tabs and continue where you left off.

thank you very much... but firefox also has the same feature without being a memory hog.

Wrong. Firefox dumps stuff out of memory much too soon, which makes it much slower than Opera.

Originally posted by prd3:

The memory isn't released RIGHT AWAY because Opera keeps stuff in memory to INCREASE PERFORMANCE. It's released eventually.

who says? which developer said ever this?

If you paid attention, you would have known.

if people have concern, we should listen and offer solutions when possible.

And if their concern is bogus, they should be told.

Originally posted by Bluerang:

Yes Opera eats RAM, but not everyone can whip up cash to get a new system/RAM like that.

Yes another ignorant post.

Opera AUTOMATICALLY ADAPTS MEMORY USAGE. So if you don't have a lot of RAM, Opera will use less.

Originally posted by dude09:

This is what most user here complaining about

On the contrary, most people here are complaining about memory usage when it isn't even particularly high. They think that 300 MB is too much even if they have 4 GB RAM!

Originally posted by prd3:

Yes another ignorant post.

Insulting people won't prove you're right. And repeating the same wrong statement won't make it right either.
Please be polite & stop being a jerk.

Originally posted by prd3:

Opera AUTOMATICALLY ADAPTS MEMORY USAGE. So if you don't have a lot of RAM, Opera will use less.

What's that have to do with memory leaks? Do you know what is a "memory leak"?

Originally posted by prd3:

On the contrary, most people here are complaining about memory usage when it isn't even particularly high. They think that 300 MB is too much even if they have 4 GB RAM!

People don't come here to nag about memory usage because they have no life, they do so because it's affecting their browsing experince when using Opera. Do you think average joe will monitor an application memory usage if he is not experincing problems with it? I don't think so, only geeks would obsess with RAM usage even when the application is running perfectly fine. Anyway, Opera 10.5~6x are plague with memory leaks & Opera developers fixed a few of 'em in the latest RC2, it's not a secret so stop being in denial, Opera is not perfect, or without flaws.

Originally posted by prd3:

Originally posted by Bluerang:

Yes Opera eats RAM, but not everyone can whip up cash to get a new system/RAM like that.

Yes another ignorant post.

Opera AUTOMATICALLY ADAPTS MEMORY USAGE. So if you don't have a lot of RAM, Opera will use less.

Well provide him with an answer then. Geez. I really do hate this place. I should switch browser but Opera does Speed dial so well. So does Safari actually, that's just slow.

Originally posted by prd3:

On the contrary, most people here are complaining about memory usage when it isn't even particularly high. They think that 300 MB is too much even if they have 4 GB RAM!

Perhaps, but i think that eating up 500MB+ out of 2GB is a bit much and yet it's something that happens to me fairly regularly with the latest builds.

Hey i have the lowest memory usage with 5 tabs open 45,572 K
see attached file

OK this is the pic

tsk.bmp

Originally posted by prd3:

Wrong. Firefox dumps stuff out of memory much too soon, which makes it much slower than Opera.

buddy you just need to calm down. take it easy.
if you're so sure then please may be you can provide some references since none of us have paid any attention.

Originally posted by Bluerang:

Originally posted by prd3:

Originally posted by Bluerang:

Yes Opera eats RAM, but not everyone can whip up cash to get a new system/RAM like that.

Yes another ignorant post.

Opera AUTOMATICALLY ADAPTS MEMORY USAGE. So if you don't have a lot of RAM, Opera will use less.

Well provide him with an answer then. Geez. I really do hate this place. I should switch browser but Opera does Speed dial so well. So does Safari actually, that's just slow.

You think there aren't any Apple fanbois that give far worse replies?

It still shouldn't use 300 mb even if we had 12 gigs of ram!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by dude09:

Originally posted by prd3:

Opera AUTOMATICALLY ADAPTS MEMORY USAGE. So if you don't have a lot of RAM, Opera will use less.

What's that have to do with memory leaks? Do you know what is a "memory leak"?

What does your comment have to do with the fact that Opera automatically adapts?

Originally posted by prd3:

On the contrary, most people here are complaining about memory usage when it isn't even particularly high. They think that 300 MB is too much even if they have 4 GB RAM!

People don't come here to nag about memory usage because they have no life, they do so because it's affecting their browsing experince when using Opera.

Wrong. As I have pointed out repeatedly, most people here are complaining because they are clueless. The thread starter complained even though the memory usage is exactly as expected.

I don't think so, only geeks would obsess with RAM usage even when the application is running perfectly fine.

Yes, and that's just silly.

Anyway, Opera 10.5~6x are plague with memory leaks

Nope. There may be memory leaks, but they clearly don't affect people like the thread starter. There are no more memory leaks than in other browsers or older versions.

Originally posted by Bluerang:

Well provide him with an answer then.

Answer to what? He made a false claim, which I refuted.

Originally posted by Zotlan:

Originally posted by prd3:

On the contrary, most people here are complaining about memory usage when it isn't even particularly high. They think that 300 MB is too much even if they have 4 GB RAM!

Perhaps, but i think that eating up 500MB+ out of 2GB is a bit much and yet it's something that happens to me fairly regularly with the latest builds.

And how many tabs, mails, etc. do you have?

Originally posted by Madcat75:

It still shouldn't use 300 mb even if we had 12 gigs of ram!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes it should. RAM is there to be used. Any application which does NOT use RAM to increase performance is poorly written. Like Firefox.

Originally posted by prd3:

And how many tabs, mails, etc. do you have?

Open? Not all that many, about ten i'd say and none with flash (and i don't use Opera mail). Before you ask, yes, it does affect my browsing, after a couple of hours Opera becomes sluggish, a problem that goes away after restarting it.

Granted, the problem is not as bad as it used to be, a few versions ago Opera would routinely eat half my RAM.

Incidentally, your antagonistic attitude is not really helping anyone, if you think someone's clueless, enlighten them, don't rip into them like they just killed your favourite pet.

Originally posted by Zotlan:

Granted, the problem is not as bad as it used to be, a few versions ago Opera would routinely eat half my RAM.

Same here. The 10.70 builds are rapidly improving, but it isn't like 10.10 just yet. At least by now we're down to a point where I don't seem to have to restart Opera every few hours due to stability reasons, but at least in yesterday's snapshot it still got sluggish. Today it hasn't gotten sluggish yet and even updating the newsfeeds doesn't seem to freeze anything temporarily (if only for a fraction of a second), so perhaps 3480 is the golden fleece. ;P

Originally posted by prd3:

RAM is there to be used. Any application which does NOT use RAM to increase performance is poorly written. Like Firefox.

You mean all Opera versions till the 10.50 series have been poorly written?
Whatever, Opera's memory usage has doubled (with only 1 tab open, no active content) for rendering nothing but HTML and images.

I've tried to follow this whole thread, and others like it. It hasn't helped.

I'd like to restate MY problem, for clarity (I hope).

Some basics:

. I don't understand how memory works.

. I DO have an ethical concern about constantly "upgrading" (that is, throwing out and buying new, for reasons NOT related to product death, but to currency) hardware and software. I currently own about 12 computers, and I think that's enough.

. I AM running Win98SE, and I have "only" 256MB of RAM. Because my CPU and motherboard are so "old", it's hard to obtain a proper memory upgrade. When I built this machine, 256MB was plenty.

. My video card SHARES (Iknow; isn't that just horrible?) my RAM.

I don't understand why, since I installed version 9.6, I can no longer use Opera without having to plan for a crash. Anything image-intensive is bound to eventually crash or freeze Opera, or render everything but its title bar invisible. This includes, especially, Flash (I hate that crap).

When I watch transmission speeds, I see things like 312 bps (yes, BITS). If I start a download (like the next Opera snapshot) at, say, 200 KBps, I can watch it fall down to a crawl as I go. My supplied connection is 1.5 MBps, and is generally pretty much that, when I test it outside Opera.

So, without understanding what has changed, and without caring for the yelling and screaming about whether one should HAVE to change out hardware and software to satisfy what does often boil down to sloppy coding (I have some understanding of the software world, from an earlier career way back in the 80s), I have observed, in real life, a HUGE change in Opera's behaviour from one version to the next (from 9.27 to 9.6). Literally.

This CANNOT be my hardware configuration, since I made no changes on the day I installed 9.6.

So.

. What HAS changed?
. What am I supposed to be getting in exchange for it, that I haven't noticed in my browsing experience?
. Is the change intentional, or are there problems?

If any one has a suggestion or two for settings changes that may improve things for people like myself who generally use defaults, and who "upgrade" (I started at version 2, and have pretty much upgraded from there) rather than installing clean, do post those ideas here. They might actually help...

Originally posted by doylel:

I DO have an ethical concern about constantly "upgrading"

Opera is free.

I AM running Win98SE, and I have "only" 256MB of RAM.

Windows 98 isn't officially supported anymore. It's just too old and has too many problems.

don't understand why, since I installed version 9.6, I can no longer use Opera without having to plan for a crash.

Why are you posting this in a thread about memory? Anyway, again, Windows 98 is not officially supported

Anything image-intensive is bound to eventually crash or freeze Opera, or render everything but its title bar invisible.

Because Windows 98 is too old.

So, without understanding what has changed, and without caring for the yelling and screaming about whether one should HAVE to change out hardware and software to satisfy what does often boil down to sloppy coding

Not sloppy coding. New standards. Opera today supports a LOT more stuff than it did just a couple of years ago. Sites are becoming more and more complex. More and more complex sites will require more and more computer power.

I have observed, in real life, a HUGE change in Opera's behaviour from one version to the next (from 9.27 to 9.6). Literally.

The huge change in behavior is that Opera is faster now than ever before. On the other hand, the web is infinitely more complex now than it was just a few years ago.

Originally posted by doylel:

I AM running Win98SE, and I have "only" 256MB of RAM. Because my CPU and motherboard are so "old", it's hard to obtain a proper memory upgrade. When I built this machine, 256MB was plenty.

I think Windows 98 is most likely to be the issue there.

Originally posted by doylel:

. I AM running Win98SE, and I have "only" 256MB of RAM. Because my CPU and motherboard are so "old", it's hard to obtain a proper memory upgrade. When I built this machine, 256MB was plenty.

. My video card SHARES (Iknow; isn't that just horrible?) my RAM.

http://www.opera.com/support/kb/view/386/

Originally posted by Krake:

Originally posted by prd3:

RAM is there to be used. Any application which does NOT use RAM to increase performance is poorly written. Like Firefox.

You mean all Opera versions till the 10.50 series have been poorly written?

In case you didn't notice, Opera has been adding support for all sorts of new stuff lately. And sites use more and more complex stuff.

Whatever, Opera's memory usage has doubled (with only 1 tab open, no active content) for rendering nothing but HTML and images.

Nope. Not here.

Originally posted by prd3:

What does your comment have to do with the fact that Opera automatically adapts?

Opera failed to manage memory usage properly, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand such simple logic.
If you don't know what is "memory leak", then please learn about it instead of keep calling people idiotic & ignorant.

Originally posted by prd3:

Anyway, Opera 10.5~6x are plague with memory leaks

Nope. There may be memory leaks, but they clearly don't affect people like the thread starter. There are no more memory leaks than in other browsers or older versions.

There are no "NOPE" or "MAYBE" when it's already confirmed by many, & Opera's memory leaks have nothing to do with other browsers either. And according to the recent Opera developers blog, Opera do have memory leaks & they fixed a few of 'em. Accept it, Opera is far from perfect.

it looks like this issue has finally got a high priority, and will probably be fixed soon.
10.70 manages memory much better than 10.50-10.60, you should try dev builds.

off-topic: there is nice "ignore" option in user profiles, helps you save some neural cells, by hiding post of regular trolls:
[ + ] posted by ignored prd3 on Wednesday, 4. August 2010, 10:04:07
[ + ] posted by ignored prd3 on Wednesday, 4. August 2010, 10:04:51
[ + ] posted by ignored prd3 on Wednesday, 4. August 2010, 10:05:49

[ + ] posted by ignored prd3 on Thursday, 5. August 2010, 15:12:37
[ + ] posted by ignored prd3 on Thursday, 5. August 2010, 15:13:39
[ + ] posted by ignored prd3 on Thursday, 5. August 2010, 15:14:22
[ + ] posted by ignored prd3 on Thursday, 5. August 2010, 15:15:17

Originally posted by Frenzie:

You think there aren't any Apple fanbois that give far worse replies?

But the worst are the Firefox kool aid drinkers - yikes!


Something to play around with..
http://www.ehow.com/how_5588553_detect-memory-leak.html

Originally posted by doylel:

If any one has a suggestion or two for settings changes that may improve things for people like myself who generally use defaults, and who "upgrade" (I started at version 2, and have pretty much upgraded from there) rather than installing clean, do post those ideas here. They might actually help...

If upgrading hardware isn't an option for what ever reason, then I suggest upgrading your operating system to some flavor of Linux for older machines. In addition to having a more stable OS and most likely any application you need, you will find that Opera will run well with fewer problems than under Win98. You will probably be able to run most of the Windoze apps you run now under Win98 by using WINE (Wine Is Not an Emulator).

Try Puppy Linux by downloading an ISO for a live CD. Boot from CD to test with your hardware. Their forums are very helpful. You can run Puppy without repartitioning or formating your hard drive. Puppy can create a persistent settings file on your windows partition. There are very good instructions for installation to hard drive or USB drive available. Once Puppy is installed, you can grab an Opera .PET package built for your version of Puppy. You will also have the ability to mount your Windoze partition (FAT32) with read/write access to all of the files. The Live CD ISO file (lupu-500.iso 14-May-2010) is only 128 mb.

Puppy Linux 5.0.1
In Puppy Linux 5.0.1, on first run of the default web browser from the desktop, you are given a list of browsers to install. Opera is in the list.



http://www.puppylinux.com/
http://puppylinux.org/
http://puppylinux.org/main/index.php?file=Overview%20and%20Getting%20Started-2.txt

Quirky 1.20 is a special multimedia version of Puppy Linux that should be able to play most multimedia formats.

http://puppylinux.org/main/index.php?file=Barry%20released%20Quirky.htm

MacPup Opera 2.0 (Opera 10.10) is a stunningly beautiful version of Puppy Linux using the Enlightenment desktop. The Live CD ISO file is only 164 mb

http://www.macpup.org/opera2.php
http://hardkap.net/forums/topic/macpup-opera-20

MacPup Opera 2.0 screenshot (Note the Opera icon in the dock.):


Last but, not least with regard to Puppy, there is a kennel full of Puppies to choose from should you need a more specialized version:

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/index.php?f=35&sid=ec3eaee3058f1c48f398cc7f3019851c

As you can see from the list below, there is no shortage of Linux distros for older machines.

Big List of Minimal Linux distros:

http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Minimal_Linux_distros

Experiment done this very afternoon. At 17:00 aprox, I left my PC, I ran some errands and 3 hours later (so, no one did anything with my PC, no one at home in the meanwhile) I checked and compared PM/VM values...

Before leaving home, I had 300 MB + 1530 MB (PM/VM)
When I came back, it was 325 MB + 1755 MB (PM/VM)

(27 tabs open, XP SP3, Opera 10.70 Build 3480). My physical RAM is 1.5 GB.

I would bet my two hands that if I wanted to close opera right now, it would take 5 or more minutes (typical behaviour after a long sesion, the kind of sesion I use to run). I won't do it, because I don't want to lose this time right now.

My opera.exe instance has been open since 5-Aug-2010 16:14
My opera 10.70 is a fresh installation (I BASHED all kind of opera data/profile/etc with revo uninstaller and some more manual deleted files).

There's some kind of inconsistency with VM management, and this is a fact. Stop.
So there's a handful of free volunteering people in my.opera forums wanting to "make tests" and trace, but we're kind of clueless on "what to do". It's sad not focusing this "workforce" onto solving this actual "set of memory bugs".

Greetings.

I'm deeply sorry, my data was completely wrong.
Opera didn't took 5 min to dissapear completely from my memory, but 12m 45s.
Yes, I was curious about doing the experiment.

Greetings!

Friguron, I've just switched from XP to OpenSuse Linux, and I'm glad to report Opera doesn't spend minutes to quit in Linux like it did on XP3 for me. The downside is that the memory leak is at least as bad under Linux... I'm going to try doing some comparisons soon and see if it's actually worse.

For those (well, one person, who might have gone by the name "Joe" and gotten banned previously) who are saying this has something to do with Opera's memory cache... it doesn't. These effects of Opera not releasing memory occurred for me even with the memory cache set to "off" and the list of closed tabs cleared. Opera simply never deallocates memory that should be deallocated and made available to the system, which is the definition of a memory leak. It also doesn't give it back "when something needs it". No modern operating system taps programs on the shoulder and asks to borrow a cup of sugar and 200MB of memory. :-) System-wide memory management is the function of the operating system, and no operating system I know (at least none that the desktop version of Opera runs on; I don't know about mobile phone OSes) periodically polls applications about memory. It is programs that make memory requests of the operating system, and normally don't even know if they're getting physical or virtual memory. The memory is also not released "over time". You'd have to be suggesting that Opera initiates a system timer event for every closed tab's memory, or records the time of each page close and periodically checks that list for expired pages. That would be an enormous, and pointless, system overhead, and since the no-memory release behavior occurs even with memory cache disabled, proven false anyway.

I started Opera with memory cache off and about 8 active tabs and had maybe 230-240MB memory usage. Opening a session with 12 more tabs boosted memory usage to about 440MB. Closing the window the session opened in and clearing the window in the closed tabs list didn't result in freeing any memory. Actually, closing the window with the 12 additional tabs increased memory usage a little! I opened a session with about 50 tabs in it and that brought the memory usage up to 1.5GB on a 2GB system! The system now was using 1.9GB physical memory and 289MB swap space. So no, Opera isn't basing its behavior on free memory either; grabbing 1.5GB on a system with less than 1.5GB free memory doesn't sound like utilizing spare capacity.

Hold on, I think I have an idea what's going on! I opened Opera with memory cache OFF and 8 tabs; same 240MB+ memory usage. Opened a 12-tab session; memory went up to 440+. Closed it; memory went up to almost 480MB. I re-opened the session; memory really didn't increase at all! I closed the session and cleared the closed tabs/windows. I opened the same session again; this time the tabs took a little longer to load but still didn't increase the memory usage at all! Again and again, no increased memory usage despite memory cache being OFF.

PERHAPS - Opera just ignores whatever you set the memory cache option to and uses it anyway? Along that same line, no matter what you set it to, it defaults to "automatic", in this case, automatic meaning "use all the memory you want to no matter what"? (Alternately, perhaps it checks free memory and gets back a false value, say 1.5TB free rather than 1.5GB, so it feels free to use as much as it wants?) I just checked, and the difference between starting Opera with 8 tabs open with memory cache on/off was 9 MB LESS with on then off; if the memory use is fuzzy depending on what ads are served on loading the pages, etc., then it doesn't seem like there's any real difference in memory usage between memcache on and off, which could lend evidence to my new theory.

Sound plausible? I just wish a developer would 1) acknowledge this issue and 2) check and see if memory cache is properly reading the saved setting when starting up.

Originally posted by duncreg:

Sound plausible? I just wish a developer would 1) acknowledge this issue and 2) check and see if memory cache is properly reading the saved setting when starting up.

well said, unless a developer comes and says anything, we cannot listen to fanboy opinions.

It's gnawing at me that that's got to be what's going on... if you launch a session in a new window, close it, then launch that same session again and memory use doesn't change at all... it's GOT to be caching it. And if memory cache is off... it's GOT to be ignoring the user preference setting . And if it's caching over a gig of data and it's ignoring the memory cache being set to off, it's almost has to be allowing an infinite memory cache. Do you think filing a bug report along the lines of "opera ignores memory cache setting" might do any good?

Originally posted by dude09:

Originally posted by prd3:

What does your comment have to do with the fact that Opera automatically adapts?

Opera failed to manage memory usage properly, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand such simple logic.

Opera manages memory properly in the vast majority of cases. Even the thread starter's case was Opera managing memory properly.

Originally posted by prd3:

Anyway, Opera 10.5~6x are plague with memory leaks

Nope. There may be memory leaks, but they clearly don't affect people like the thread starter. There are no more memory leaks than in other browsers or older versions.

There are no "NOPE" or "MAYBE" when it's already confirmed by many,

WRONG. Just a bunch of useless speculation. Even the thread starter showed no problems event though he claimed they were there.

THATS'S the point. People are whining about memory, while in the VAST majority of cases there is no actual problem.

Originally posted by rushad0:

Originally posted by duncreg:

Sound plausible? I just wish a developer would 1) acknowledge this issue and 2) check and see if memory cache is properly reading the saved setting when starting up.

well said, unless a developer comes and says anything, we cannot listen to fanboy opinions.

The developers have said that Opera dynamically adapts the memory usage. And indeed, this thread is full of examples of people whining about memory usage, when there is nothing to whine about.

Originally posted by duncreg:

if you launch a session in a new window, close it, then launch that same session again and memory use doesn't change at all... it's GOT to be caching it.

Of course it is. Opera caches all sorts of stuff to be faster.

Do you think filing a bug report along the lines of "opera ignores memory cache setting" might do any good?

That would be a useless and vague "bug report".

Originally posted by prd3:

WRONG. They said nothing of the sorts.

Fixed a few memory leaks

From http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2010/08/02/second-release-candidate-for-10-61
You cannot fix problems unless they were there in the first place. In fact, the latest dev. diary also mentions memory issues being fixed.

Originally posted by prd3:

WHY ARE YOU ACTIVELY LYING ABOUT OPERA?

Why are you so very angry? Have a beer, relax.

Opera developers got more memory issues fixed in the latest 10.7 snapshot!

Originally posted by prd3:

Opera manages memory properly in the vast majority of cases.

So now you changed your position & acknowledge that Opera have memory leaks, but somehow you got the idea that memory leak only magically applied to a few but not everyone that downloaded & installed the same version of software.

Originally posted by prd3:

WRONG. Just a bunch of useless speculation. Even the thread starter showed no problems event though he claimed they were there.
THATS'S the point. People are whining about memory, while in the VAST majority of cases there is no actual problem.

Keep repeating that for a few thousand times, it still won't change the bug fixed list in HERE, & a few other changelogs before this one which mentioned "fixed memory leaks". So far, you're the one that's spewing useless speculations & insulting people with baseless claims, please googled "memory leak" to learn what is it, & stop embarrassing Opera forum with such fanboyish comment.

Originally posted by dude09:

So now you changed your position & acknowledge that Opera have memory leaks

Why are you actively LYING? ALL applications can have memory leaks, but they affect a small minority. MY POINT, which you keep dishonestly ignoring, is that the vast majority of people who claim to have memory problems are not actually having any actual problems.

Here is what I ACTUALLY wrote, which you disgustingly and dishonestly ignored, and the proceeded to disgustingly and dishonestly claiming that I wrote something else:

"There may be memory leaks, but they clearly don't affect people like the thread starter. There are no more memory leaks than in other browsers or older versions."

Originally posted by prd3:

THATS'S the point. People are whining about memory, while in the VAST majority of cases there is no actual problem.

I can assure you that Opera 10.5x+ gave me actual problems (i.e. slowness of my entire OS, crashing, etc.), which during 10.6x+ had been improved to the point where I had to restart Opera every one or two days. Only now with the 10.70 builds have I been able to run Opera the way I always have (i.e. days or weeks at a time -haven't gotten round to months yet-, and without huge slowdowns/freezes while doing things like updating feeds).

But I still sometimes encounter an unresponsive Opera when I try to open a new page, which occurs far more frequently than it used to in 10.10. In short, Opera is faster Chrome-style, but slower in the way that I care about: responsiveness. It still seems faster than the other browsers in that department as well, but not as significantly completely undisputed leader style.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I can assure you that Opera 10.5x+ gave me actual problems (i.e. slowness of my entire OS, crashing, etc.), which during 10.6x+ had been improved to the point where I had to restart Opera every one or two days. Only now with the 10.70 builds have I been able to run Opera the way I always have (i.e. days or weeks at a time -haven't gotten round to months yet-, and without huge slowdowns/freezes while doing things like updating feeds).

But I still sometimes encounter an unresponsive Opera when I try to open a new page, which occurs far more frequently than it used to in 10.10. In short, Opera is faster Chrome-style, but slower in the way that I care about: responsiveness. It still seems faster than the other browsers in that department as well, but not as significantly completely undisputed leader style.

QFT. Opera 10.7 is a lot better than 10.5&6, but it still kinda annoying sometimes.

Originally posted by prd3:

MY POINT, which you keep dishonestly ignoring, is that the vast majority of people who claim to have memory problems are not actually having any actual problems.

Great, more false accusation & make believe speculations...
Please read your earlier posts, they are all about calling people clueless & ignorant, & you implied that Opera memory management is fine. Again, please learn about "memory leak" instead of accusing everyone as clueless, ignorant, useless, lier.

Originally posted by prd3:

Here is what I ACTUALLY wrote, which you disgustingly and dishonestly ignored, and the proceeded to disgustingly and dishonestly claiming that I wrote something else:

"There may be memory leaks, but they clearly don't affect people like the thread starter. There are no more memory leaks than in other browsers or older versions."

I replied your red herring with this:

Originally posted by dude09:

There are no "NOPE" or "MAYBE" when it's already confirmed by many, & Opera's memory leaks have nothing to do with other browsers either. And according to the recent Opera developers blog, Opera do have memory leaks & they fixed a few of 'em. Accept it, Opera is far from perfect.

If Opera doesn't have serious memory mismanagement problem as you claimed throughout this thread, then why Opera developers working so hard fixing memory related bugs for the last few snapshots & update?

Originally posted by prd3:

Originally posted by duncreg:

if you launch a session in a new window, close it, then launch that same session again and memory use doesn't change at all... it's GOT to be caching it.

Of course it is. Opera caches all sorts of stuff to be faster.

Um... you ignored the fact that memory cache was set to OFF. If it's doing that when memory cache is OFF, then it's ignoring the memory cache setting. If it's not considering it as set to OFF, it might as well be treating it as set to 200GB for all we know. That explains the fact that Opera never, ever releases memory while running and that opening and closing the same session resulted in little extra memory increase - it's not a general leak, but a rogue memory cache feature.

Originally posted by prd3:

Originally posted by duncreg:

Do you think filing a bug report along the lines of "opera ignores memory cache setting" might do any good?

That would be a useless and vague "bug report".

Useless? A rogue memory cache bug causes Opera to eventually consume all system memory? Vague? There's been a lot of talk about this problem, but now we think we have a specific diagnosis. This is actually the most specific identification of the problem as of yet. You seem desperate to deny this bug. Are you sure you're not the "Joe" who used to insult everyone who reported a problem with Opera until he got banned?

I just installed the latest 10.7 beta in a virtualbox virtual machine running OpenSuse Linux and opened up 20 tabs to articles on the same website with memory cache OFF. Memory usage: about 280MB. I think 10.7 might end up fixing the memory leaks that are just our imaginations! :-) I'll do some more tests and comparisons with 10.6 soon to get a better idea.

I wouldn't mix windows/linux behaviour AT ALL in case we might want to extract useful data. Worst idea ever.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I can assure you that Opera 10.5x+ gave me actual problems

Too bad. It works fine for other people.

Opera is faster Chrome-style, but slower in the way that I care about: responsiveness.

Nope, as fast as ever to other people.

You can't take your own personal and biased anecdotes and pretend that they are true for everyone else.

Originally posted by dude09:

Please read your earlier posts, they are all about calling people clueless & ignorant, & you implied that Opera memory management is fine.

Opera's memory management is fine.

Again, please learn about "memory leak" instead of accusing everyone as clueless, ignorant, useless, lier.

I know very well what a memory leak is. The point is that most people are not having problems.

I replied your red herring with this:

Your disgusting straw men and misrepresentations are the very epitome of dishonesty. That a couple of people are affected by rare memory leaks doesn't mean that it doesn't work fine for most people.

Stop blatantly lying. Your replies are dishonestly ignoring what I actually wrote, and ranting on about other things.

The bottom line is that most people are not having any problems whatsoever, and this includes the thread starter, meaning that the entire thread was started based on a fallacy.

Originally posted by duncreg:

Um... you ignored the fact that memory cache was set to OFF.

LOL, you really expect Opera to stop using physical memory? Fail.

That explains the fact that Opera never, ever releases memory while running

It does.

Useless? A rogue memory cache bug causes Opera to eventually consume all system memory? Vague?

Yes, that's INCREDIBLY vague. No details whatsoever. No steps they can take to try to recreate the circumstances. Extremely vague, and utterly useless.

There's been a lot of talk about this problem, but now we think we have a specific diagnosis.

No you don't. You have the vague claims of someone who shouldn't be making claims about things they don't know anything about.

This is actually the most specific identification of the problem as of yet.

Wrong. It's extremely vague, and you are assuming that there is a single "problem" which is the source of all claims about all problems.

Originally posted by prd3:

Opera's memory management is fine.

You admitted Opera have memory leaks, & then you think "Opera's memory management <strong>is</strong> fine"...

Originally posted by prd3:

I know very well what a memory leak is.

And yet you claimed:

Originally posted by prd3:

That a couple of people are affected by rare memory leaks doesn't mean that it doesn't work fine for most people.

I'm not gonna waste my time educating you about how wrong the above statement is, but please stop embarrassing yourself & Opera community with such fanboyish & illogical claims. (HINT: Memory leak is a software bug)

Originally posted by prd3:

Your disgusting straw men and misrepresentations are the very epitome of dishonesty. That a couple of people are affected by rare memory leaks doesn't mean that it doesn't work fine for most people.

Stop blatantly lying. Your replies are dishonestly ignoring what I actually wrote, and ranting on about other things.

The bottom line is that most people are not having any problems whatsoever, and this includes the thread starter, meaning that the entire thread was started based on a fallacy.

More false accusation & personal attacks? How about honestly answer this question?

Originally posted by dude09:

If Opera doesn't have serious memory mismanagement problem as you claimed throughout this thread, then why Opera developers working so hard fixing memory related bugs for the last few snapshots & update?

Originally posted by dude09:

And yet you claimed:

FAIL.

The facts are clear. It works fine for most people. Your ignorance compels you to clutch onto the false belief that every single software bug automatically affects all users.

If Opera doesn't have serious memory mismanagement problem as you claimed throughout this thread, then why Opera developers working so hard fixing memory related bugs for the last few snapshots & update?

Are you drunk? Fixing a bug or two doesn't mean that the bugs are an indication of a serious problem. Again you are falsely assuming that all bugs will affect every single user. If there had been serious problems, there would have been a lot more focus on it, and it would have been fixed a lot sooner.

You admitted Opera have memory leaks, & then you think "Opera's memory management is fine"...

Are you drunk? Yes, Opera's memory management is fine. It works perfectly for most people. A couple of obscure bugs does not change that. The thread starter still isn't having any actual problems. Most people who think they are having memory problems are WRONG, as is clear from this thread.

Originally posted by prd3:

The facts are clear. It works fine for most people.

Delusional is a sickness, I suggest you meet with a doctor.
What's really happenening...

Originally posted by prd3:

Your ignorance compels you to clutch onto the false belief that every single software bug automatically affects all users.

strawmen...

Originally posted by prd3:

Are you drunk? Fixing a bug or two doesn't mean that the bugs are an indication of a serious problem.

Are you sober? Read the changelogs for the last few snapshots & update.

Originally posted by prd3:

Again you are falsely assuming that all bugs will affect every single user. If there had been serious problems, there would have been a lot more focus on it, and it would have been fixed a lot sooner.

more strawmen...

Originally posted by prd3:

Originally posted by dude09:

You admitted Opera have memory leaks, & then you think "Opera's memory management is fine"...

Are you drunk? Yes, Opera's memory management is fine. It works perfectly for most people. A couple of obscure bugs does not change that. The thread starter still isn't having any actual problems. Most people who think they are having memory problems are WRONG, as is clear from this thread.

Yeah, whoever disagreed with you are always WRONG, ignorant, clueless, & a bunch of dishonest drunken liers.
But somehow you are always irrefutably RIGHT, even when you're so wrong...

Originally posted by dude09:

Originally posted by prd3:

The facts are clear. It works fine for most people.

Delusional is a sickness, I suggest you meet with a doctor.
What's really happenening...

Your link is useless. I have alread demonstrated that the vast majority of claims about "memory problems" are in fact not problems at all. Case in point: Thread starter!

Originally posted by prd3:

Are you drunk? Fixing a bug or two doesn't mean that the bugs are an indication of a serious problem.

Are you sober? Read the changelogs for the last few snapshots & update.

Unlike you, I stay informed. You are just spewing false assertions.

Originally posted by prd3:

Your link is useless.

Useless? The mass complaints about memory related problems in Opera forum proved you're wrong about Opera have no serious memory mismanagement.

Originally posted by prd3:

I have alread demonstrated that the vast majority of claims about "memory problems" are in fact not problems at all. Case in point: Thread starter!

You just demonstrated a perfect example of fallacy of accident by attempt to use one single case to discredit the mass complaints about memory related problems in Opera forum.

Originally posted by prd3:

Unlike you, I stay informed. You are just spewing false assertions.

More personal attacks?

That's how you demonstrated the vast majority claims about "memory problems" are in fact not problems at all?
Also, cherry picking information can hardly be consider as "stay informed".

Originally posted by dude09:

Originally posted by prd3:

Your link is useless.

Useless? The mass complaints about memory related problems in Opera forum proved you're wrong about Opera have no serious memory mismanagement.

Stop repeating the same lie over and over again after I've already refuted it. I have already explained that just because someone claims there are memory problems, that doesn't make it so. Case in point: Thread starter. If you actually LOOK at most of these reports, they are clearly bogus, and Opera is NOT doing something it shouldn't be doing.

You just demonstrated a perfect example of fallacy of accident by attempt to use one single case to discredit the mass complaints about memory related problems in Opera forum.

Wrong. I just pointed out the TS as an obvious example. I have pointed out numerous other claims about memory problems just from this thread that are clearly nonsense.

Mod edit: Hijack attempt removed.