Get chrome's total memory usage

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
22
down vote

favorite
12












Since google chrome/chromium spawn multiple processes it's harder to see how much total memory these processes use in total.



Is there an easy way to see how much total memory a series of connected processes is using?










share|improve this question





















  • If I convert the numbers that prints out from KiB to GiB then even for Res. Memory I get more than the machine's amount of RAM plus swap. So it seems like something is getting over-counted.
    – Ryan1729
    Jun 9 '16 at 4:42














up vote
22
down vote

favorite
12












Since google chrome/chromium spawn multiple processes it's harder to see how much total memory these processes use in total.



Is there an easy way to see how much total memory a series of connected processes is using?










share|improve this question





















  • If I convert the numbers that prints out from KiB to GiB then even for Res. Memory I get more than the machine's amount of RAM plus swap. So it seems like something is getting over-counted.
    – Ryan1729
    Jun 9 '16 at 4:42












up vote
22
down vote

favorite
12









up vote
22
down vote

favorite
12






12





Since google chrome/chromium spawn multiple processes it's harder to see how much total memory these processes use in total.



Is there an easy way to see how much total memory a series of connected processes is using?










share|improve this question













Since google chrome/chromium spawn multiple processes it's harder to see how much total memory these processes use in total.



Is there an easy way to see how much total memory a series of connected processes is using?







memory chrome process-management multithreading






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Jun 9 '16 at 3:01









Ryan1729

21325




21325











  • If I convert the numbers that prints out from KiB to GiB then even for Res. Memory I get more than the machine's amount of RAM plus swap. So it seems like something is getting over-counted.
    – Ryan1729
    Jun 9 '16 at 4:42
















  • If I convert the numbers that prints out from KiB to GiB then even for Res. Memory I get more than the machine's amount of RAM plus swap. So it seems like something is getting over-counted.
    – Ryan1729
    Jun 9 '16 at 4:42















If I convert the numbers that prints out from KiB to GiB then even for Res. Memory I get more than the machine's amount of RAM plus swap. So it seems like something is getting over-counted.
– Ryan1729
Jun 9 '16 at 4:42




If I convert the numbers that prints out from KiB to GiB then even for Res. Memory I get more than the machine's amount of RAM plus swap. So it seems like something is getting over-counted.
– Ryan1729
Jun 9 '16 at 4:42










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
21
down vote



accepted










Given that google killed chrome://memory in March 2016, I am now using smem:



# detailed output, in kB apparently
smem -t -P chrom
# just the total PSS, with automatic unit:
smem -t -k -c pss -P chrom | tail -n 1


  • to be more accurate replace chrom by full path e.g. /opt/google/chrome or /usr/lib64/chromium-browser

  • this works the same for multiprocess firefox (e10s) with -P firefox

  • be careful, smem reports itself in the output, an additional ~10-20M on my system.

  • unlike top it needs root access to accurately monitor root processes -- use sudo smem for that.

  • see this SO answer for more details on why smem is a good tool and how to read the output.





share|improve this answer






















  • I am not sure that this is working for me. When I run the second command, I get a returned value of 338.0M. This is too low. When I run System Monitor, I can see that there are 11 chrome processes and each is taking between 70MB and 400MB of RAM. Not sure if System Monitor is reporting incorrectly or not.
    – sixtyfootersdude
    Apr 5 '17 at 15:40










  • Same problem for smem on a Kali Linux 2017.1 distribution, the output is 800Mo of ram used by chrome with 5 instances and at least 30 tabs ... And the system monitor does not agree with smem either. Has anyone found a solution to this ? (Thanks for the answer and the references)
    – matthieusb
    Jun 17 '17 at 22:10






  • 1




    Your comments deserve a separate question (with full output of conflicting programs). Just post the link in the comment.
    – eddygeek
    Jun 18 '17 at 22:43






  • 1




    I would use chrome instead of just chorm because if you are running both chrome and chromium, you 'd be seeing total for both.
    – R J
    Mar 3 at 12:33










  • Is there any similar solution on Mac?
    – Domon
    Apr 17 at 11:14

















up vote
2
down vote













Running this:



perl -e '$a="x"x1000000000;sleep(10);print"donen"'


takes up 1.8GB RAM. So you would expect running this:



perl -e '$a="x"x1000000000;fork;fork;fork;fork;sleep(10);print"donen"'


would take up 16 times as much. But it does not.



This is due to the Linux kernel's intelligent copy-on-write: Because the contents of '$a' does not change, then the memory of '$a' can be shared. But it will only remain shared until '$a' is changed. When that happens, the changed section will be copied and start to take up RAM.



Whether you can measure how much memory is copy-on-write over-committed I do not know. But at least this explains your over-counting.






share|improve this answer



























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    I'm sure that it's not the best solution, still it works for me:



    #!/bin/sh
    ps aux | grep "[/]opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'print $5' | awk 'sum += $1 END print sum '
    ps aux | grep "[/]opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'print $6' | awk 'sum += $1 END print sum '


    Note: change the [/]opt/google/chrome/chrome to something appropriate for your system, e.g. if you're on Mac OS X (simply grep "chrome" will work).






    share|improve this answer


















    • 1




      This “works” in that it prints a number. However this number is not all that useful since memory that is shared between several processes is counted multiple times.
      – Gilles
      Jun 9 '16 at 22:38










    • I imagine in reality it's still good enough because Chrome is by far the biggest memory hog on typical desktops and when you kill chrome processes your system becomes blazing fast.
      – user7000
      Dec 3 '16 at 2:48










    • Why two awk commands? That is, why not just ... | awk 'sum += $6 END print sum'?
      – wjandrea
      Apr 23 at 6:37










    • FWIW, here's a shorter, clearer version: ps aux | grep "/opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'vsz += $5; rss += $6 END print "vsz="vsz, "rss="rss '
      – wjandrea
      Apr 23 at 17:24










    • Note that the square brackets in the grep command are supposed to avoid matching the pipeline itself.
      – wjandrea
      May 26 at 4:12

















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    I knew that chrome/chromium had a task manager, but it doesn't give the total memory used. It turns out that the "Stats for nerds" link in the task manager leads to chrome://memory-redirect/ which does list the total memory used. It would be nice to have external validation of these numbers, as well as a way to get the information on the command line so more could be done with it, but this seems to be the best way available.






    share|improve this answer
















    • 2




      This answer is not valid anymore. See bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=588790
      – eddygeek
      Nov 29 '16 at 12:57

















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Just quickly calculate the sum of the processes.



    On Mac:



    • go to chrome://system/ and select all reported in mem_usage

    • paste in SublimeText

    • SelectAll (CMD+'A') and SelectAllLines (CMD+SHIFT+'L')

    • CMD+Right (go to eol), Backspace, Backspace, Backspace, ALT+Left, CMD+Backspace

    • Backspace, type '+', CMD+'A', CMD+'C'

    • open Terminal, run python, CMD+V, Enter

    Et voila! "Easy"... 🤓😅



    PS - Shortcut ninjas & 80s/90s Fighting-game players should have no problem with this solution 🤖🕹💾






    share|improve this answer






















      Your Answer







      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "106"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f288589%2fget-chromes-total-memory-usage%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      21
      down vote



      accepted










      Given that google killed chrome://memory in March 2016, I am now using smem:



      # detailed output, in kB apparently
      smem -t -P chrom
      # just the total PSS, with automatic unit:
      smem -t -k -c pss -P chrom | tail -n 1


      • to be more accurate replace chrom by full path e.g. /opt/google/chrome or /usr/lib64/chromium-browser

      • this works the same for multiprocess firefox (e10s) with -P firefox

      • be careful, smem reports itself in the output, an additional ~10-20M on my system.

      • unlike top it needs root access to accurately monitor root processes -- use sudo smem for that.

      • see this SO answer for more details on why smem is a good tool and how to read the output.





      share|improve this answer






















      • I am not sure that this is working for me. When I run the second command, I get a returned value of 338.0M. This is too low. When I run System Monitor, I can see that there are 11 chrome processes and each is taking between 70MB and 400MB of RAM. Not sure if System Monitor is reporting incorrectly or not.
        – sixtyfootersdude
        Apr 5 '17 at 15:40










      • Same problem for smem on a Kali Linux 2017.1 distribution, the output is 800Mo of ram used by chrome with 5 instances and at least 30 tabs ... And the system monitor does not agree with smem either. Has anyone found a solution to this ? (Thanks for the answer and the references)
        – matthieusb
        Jun 17 '17 at 22:10






      • 1




        Your comments deserve a separate question (with full output of conflicting programs). Just post the link in the comment.
        – eddygeek
        Jun 18 '17 at 22:43






      • 1




        I would use chrome instead of just chorm because if you are running both chrome and chromium, you 'd be seeing total for both.
        – R J
        Mar 3 at 12:33










      • Is there any similar solution on Mac?
        – Domon
        Apr 17 at 11:14














      up vote
      21
      down vote



      accepted










      Given that google killed chrome://memory in March 2016, I am now using smem:



      # detailed output, in kB apparently
      smem -t -P chrom
      # just the total PSS, with automatic unit:
      smem -t -k -c pss -P chrom | tail -n 1


      • to be more accurate replace chrom by full path e.g. /opt/google/chrome or /usr/lib64/chromium-browser

      • this works the same for multiprocess firefox (e10s) with -P firefox

      • be careful, smem reports itself in the output, an additional ~10-20M on my system.

      • unlike top it needs root access to accurately monitor root processes -- use sudo smem for that.

      • see this SO answer for more details on why smem is a good tool and how to read the output.





      share|improve this answer






















      • I am not sure that this is working for me. When I run the second command, I get a returned value of 338.0M. This is too low. When I run System Monitor, I can see that there are 11 chrome processes and each is taking between 70MB and 400MB of RAM. Not sure if System Monitor is reporting incorrectly or not.
        – sixtyfootersdude
        Apr 5 '17 at 15:40










      • Same problem for smem on a Kali Linux 2017.1 distribution, the output is 800Mo of ram used by chrome with 5 instances and at least 30 tabs ... And the system monitor does not agree with smem either. Has anyone found a solution to this ? (Thanks for the answer and the references)
        – matthieusb
        Jun 17 '17 at 22:10






      • 1




        Your comments deserve a separate question (with full output of conflicting programs). Just post the link in the comment.
        – eddygeek
        Jun 18 '17 at 22:43






      • 1




        I would use chrome instead of just chorm because if you are running both chrome and chromium, you 'd be seeing total for both.
        – R J
        Mar 3 at 12:33










      • Is there any similar solution on Mac?
        – Domon
        Apr 17 at 11:14












      up vote
      21
      down vote



      accepted







      up vote
      21
      down vote



      accepted






      Given that google killed chrome://memory in March 2016, I am now using smem:



      # detailed output, in kB apparently
      smem -t -P chrom
      # just the total PSS, with automatic unit:
      smem -t -k -c pss -P chrom | tail -n 1


      • to be more accurate replace chrom by full path e.g. /opt/google/chrome or /usr/lib64/chromium-browser

      • this works the same for multiprocess firefox (e10s) with -P firefox

      • be careful, smem reports itself in the output, an additional ~10-20M on my system.

      • unlike top it needs root access to accurately monitor root processes -- use sudo smem for that.

      • see this SO answer for more details on why smem is a good tool and how to read the output.





      share|improve this answer














      Given that google killed chrome://memory in March 2016, I am now using smem:



      # detailed output, in kB apparently
      smem -t -P chrom
      # just the total PSS, with automatic unit:
      smem -t -k -c pss -P chrom | tail -n 1


      • to be more accurate replace chrom by full path e.g. /opt/google/chrome or /usr/lib64/chromium-browser

      • this works the same for multiprocess firefox (e10s) with -P firefox

      • be careful, smem reports itself in the output, an additional ~10-20M on my system.

      • unlike top it needs root access to accurately monitor root processes -- use sudo smem for that.

      • see this SO answer for more details on why smem is a good tool and how to read the output.






      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Nov 6 '17 at 14:32

























      answered Nov 29 '16 at 13:24









      eddygeek

      38125




      38125











      • I am not sure that this is working for me. When I run the second command, I get a returned value of 338.0M. This is too low. When I run System Monitor, I can see that there are 11 chrome processes and each is taking between 70MB and 400MB of RAM. Not sure if System Monitor is reporting incorrectly or not.
        – sixtyfootersdude
        Apr 5 '17 at 15:40










      • Same problem for smem on a Kali Linux 2017.1 distribution, the output is 800Mo of ram used by chrome with 5 instances and at least 30 tabs ... And the system monitor does not agree with smem either. Has anyone found a solution to this ? (Thanks for the answer and the references)
        – matthieusb
        Jun 17 '17 at 22:10






      • 1




        Your comments deserve a separate question (with full output of conflicting programs). Just post the link in the comment.
        – eddygeek
        Jun 18 '17 at 22:43






      • 1




        I would use chrome instead of just chorm because if you are running both chrome and chromium, you 'd be seeing total for both.
        – R J
        Mar 3 at 12:33










      • Is there any similar solution on Mac?
        – Domon
        Apr 17 at 11:14
















      • I am not sure that this is working for me. When I run the second command, I get a returned value of 338.0M. This is too low. When I run System Monitor, I can see that there are 11 chrome processes and each is taking between 70MB and 400MB of RAM. Not sure if System Monitor is reporting incorrectly or not.
        – sixtyfootersdude
        Apr 5 '17 at 15:40










      • Same problem for smem on a Kali Linux 2017.1 distribution, the output is 800Mo of ram used by chrome with 5 instances and at least 30 tabs ... And the system monitor does not agree with smem either. Has anyone found a solution to this ? (Thanks for the answer and the references)
        – matthieusb
        Jun 17 '17 at 22:10






      • 1




        Your comments deserve a separate question (with full output of conflicting programs). Just post the link in the comment.
        – eddygeek
        Jun 18 '17 at 22:43






      • 1




        I would use chrome instead of just chorm because if you are running both chrome and chromium, you 'd be seeing total for both.
        – R J
        Mar 3 at 12:33










      • Is there any similar solution on Mac?
        – Domon
        Apr 17 at 11:14















      I am not sure that this is working for me. When I run the second command, I get a returned value of 338.0M. This is too low. When I run System Monitor, I can see that there are 11 chrome processes and each is taking between 70MB and 400MB of RAM. Not sure if System Monitor is reporting incorrectly or not.
      – sixtyfootersdude
      Apr 5 '17 at 15:40




      I am not sure that this is working for me. When I run the second command, I get a returned value of 338.0M. This is too low. When I run System Monitor, I can see that there are 11 chrome processes and each is taking between 70MB and 400MB of RAM. Not sure if System Monitor is reporting incorrectly or not.
      – sixtyfootersdude
      Apr 5 '17 at 15:40












      Same problem for smem on a Kali Linux 2017.1 distribution, the output is 800Mo of ram used by chrome with 5 instances and at least 30 tabs ... And the system monitor does not agree with smem either. Has anyone found a solution to this ? (Thanks for the answer and the references)
      – matthieusb
      Jun 17 '17 at 22:10




      Same problem for smem on a Kali Linux 2017.1 distribution, the output is 800Mo of ram used by chrome with 5 instances and at least 30 tabs ... And the system monitor does not agree with smem either. Has anyone found a solution to this ? (Thanks for the answer and the references)
      – matthieusb
      Jun 17 '17 at 22:10




      1




      1




      Your comments deserve a separate question (with full output of conflicting programs). Just post the link in the comment.
      – eddygeek
      Jun 18 '17 at 22:43




      Your comments deserve a separate question (with full output of conflicting programs). Just post the link in the comment.
      – eddygeek
      Jun 18 '17 at 22:43




      1




      1




      I would use chrome instead of just chorm because if you are running both chrome and chromium, you 'd be seeing total for both.
      – R J
      Mar 3 at 12:33




      I would use chrome instead of just chorm because if you are running both chrome and chromium, you 'd be seeing total for both.
      – R J
      Mar 3 at 12:33












      Is there any similar solution on Mac?
      – Domon
      Apr 17 at 11:14




      Is there any similar solution on Mac?
      – Domon
      Apr 17 at 11:14












      up vote
      2
      down vote













      Running this:



      perl -e '$a="x"x1000000000;sleep(10);print"donen"'


      takes up 1.8GB RAM. So you would expect running this:



      perl -e '$a="x"x1000000000;fork;fork;fork;fork;sleep(10);print"donen"'


      would take up 16 times as much. But it does not.



      This is due to the Linux kernel's intelligent copy-on-write: Because the contents of '$a' does not change, then the memory of '$a' can be shared. But it will only remain shared until '$a' is changed. When that happens, the changed section will be copied and start to take up RAM.



      Whether you can measure how much memory is copy-on-write over-committed I do not know. But at least this explains your over-counting.






      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        2
        down vote













        Running this:



        perl -e '$a="x"x1000000000;sleep(10);print"donen"'


        takes up 1.8GB RAM. So you would expect running this:



        perl -e '$a="x"x1000000000;fork;fork;fork;fork;sleep(10);print"donen"'


        would take up 16 times as much. But it does not.



        This is due to the Linux kernel's intelligent copy-on-write: Because the contents of '$a' does not change, then the memory of '$a' can be shared. But it will only remain shared until '$a' is changed. When that happens, the changed section will be copied and start to take up RAM.



        Whether you can measure how much memory is copy-on-write over-committed I do not know. But at least this explains your over-counting.






        share|improve this answer






















          up vote
          2
          down vote










          up vote
          2
          down vote









          Running this:



          perl -e '$a="x"x1000000000;sleep(10);print"donen"'


          takes up 1.8GB RAM. So you would expect running this:



          perl -e '$a="x"x1000000000;fork;fork;fork;fork;sleep(10);print"donen"'


          would take up 16 times as much. But it does not.



          This is due to the Linux kernel's intelligent copy-on-write: Because the contents of '$a' does not change, then the memory of '$a' can be shared. But it will only remain shared until '$a' is changed. When that happens, the changed section will be copied and start to take up RAM.



          Whether you can measure how much memory is copy-on-write over-committed I do not know. But at least this explains your over-counting.






          share|improve this answer












          Running this:



          perl -e '$a="x"x1000000000;sleep(10);print"donen"'


          takes up 1.8GB RAM. So you would expect running this:



          perl -e '$a="x"x1000000000;fork;fork;fork;fork;sleep(10);print"donen"'


          would take up 16 times as much. But it does not.



          This is due to the Linux kernel's intelligent copy-on-write: Because the contents of '$a' does not change, then the memory of '$a' can be shared. But it will only remain shared until '$a' is changed. When that happens, the changed section will be copied and start to take up RAM.



          Whether you can measure how much memory is copy-on-write over-committed I do not know. But at least this explains your over-counting.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Jun 9 '16 at 5:54









          Ole Tange

          11.5k1345103




          11.5k1345103




















              up vote
              1
              down vote













              I'm sure that it's not the best solution, still it works for me:



              #!/bin/sh
              ps aux | grep "[/]opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'print $5' | awk 'sum += $1 END print sum '
              ps aux | grep "[/]opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'print $6' | awk 'sum += $1 END print sum '


              Note: change the [/]opt/google/chrome/chrome to something appropriate for your system, e.g. if you're on Mac OS X (simply grep "chrome" will work).






              share|improve this answer


















              • 1




                This “works” in that it prints a number. However this number is not all that useful since memory that is shared between several processes is counted multiple times.
                – Gilles
                Jun 9 '16 at 22:38










              • I imagine in reality it's still good enough because Chrome is by far the biggest memory hog on typical desktops and when you kill chrome processes your system becomes blazing fast.
                – user7000
                Dec 3 '16 at 2:48










              • Why two awk commands? That is, why not just ... | awk 'sum += $6 END print sum'?
                – wjandrea
                Apr 23 at 6:37










              • FWIW, here's a shorter, clearer version: ps aux | grep "/opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'vsz += $5; rss += $6 END print "vsz="vsz, "rss="rss '
                – wjandrea
                Apr 23 at 17:24










              • Note that the square brackets in the grep command are supposed to avoid matching the pipeline itself.
                – wjandrea
                May 26 at 4:12














              up vote
              1
              down vote













              I'm sure that it's not the best solution, still it works for me:



              #!/bin/sh
              ps aux | grep "[/]opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'print $5' | awk 'sum += $1 END print sum '
              ps aux | grep "[/]opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'print $6' | awk 'sum += $1 END print sum '


              Note: change the [/]opt/google/chrome/chrome to something appropriate for your system, e.g. if you're on Mac OS X (simply grep "chrome" will work).






              share|improve this answer


















              • 1




                This “works” in that it prints a number. However this number is not all that useful since memory that is shared between several processes is counted multiple times.
                – Gilles
                Jun 9 '16 at 22:38










              • I imagine in reality it's still good enough because Chrome is by far the biggest memory hog on typical desktops and when you kill chrome processes your system becomes blazing fast.
                – user7000
                Dec 3 '16 at 2:48










              • Why two awk commands? That is, why not just ... | awk 'sum += $6 END print sum'?
                – wjandrea
                Apr 23 at 6:37










              • FWIW, here's a shorter, clearer version: ps aux | grep "/opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'vsz += $5; rss += $6 END print "vsz="vsz, "rss="rss '
                – wjandrea
                Apr 23 at 17:24










              • Note that the square brackets in the grep command are supposed to avoid matching the pipeline itself.
                – wjandrea
                May 26 at 4:12












              up vote
              1
              down vote










              up vote
              1
              down vote









              I'm sure that it's not the best solution, still it works for me:



              #!/bin/sh
              ps aux | grep "[/]opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'print $5' | awk 'sum += $1 END print sum '
              ps aux | grep "[/]opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'print $6' | awk 'sum += $1 END print sum '


              Note: change the [/]opt/google/chrome/chrome to something appropriate for your system, e.g. if you're on Mac OS X (simply grep "chrome" will work).






              share|improve this answer














              I'm sure that it's not the best solution, still it works for me:



              #!/bin/sh
              ps aux | grep "[/]opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'print $5' | awk 'sum += $1 END print sum '
              ps aux | grep "[/]opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'print $6' | awk 'sum += $1 END print sum '


              Note: change the [/]opt/google/chrome/chrome to something appropriate for your system, e.g. if you're on Mac OS X (simply grep "chrome" will work).







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Dec 3 '16 at 4:09









              user7000

              488420




              488420










              answered Jun 9 '16 at 6:00









              Lev Bystritskiy

              1956




              1956







              • 1




                This “works” in that it prints a number. However this number is not all that useful since memory that is shared between several processes is counted multiple times.
                – Gilles
                Jun 9 '16 at 22:38










              • I imagine in reality it's still good enough because Chrome is by far the biggest memory hog on typical desktops and when you kill chrome processes your system becomes blazing fast.
                – user7000
                Dec 3 '16 at 2:48










              • Why two awk commands? That is, why not just ... | awk 'sum += $6 END print sum'?
                – wjandrea
                Apr 23 at 6:37










              • FWIW, here's a shorter, clearer version: ps aux | grep "/opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'vsz += $5; rss += $6 END print "vsz="vsz, "rss="rss '
                – wjandrea
                Apr 23 at 17:24










              • Note that the square brackets in the grep command are supposed to avoid matching the pipeline itself.
                – wjandrea
                May 26 at 4:12












              • 1




                This “works” in that it prints a number. However this number is not all that useful since memory that is shared between several processes is counted multiple times.
                – Gilles
                Jun 9 '16 at 22:38










              • I imagine in reality it's still good enough because Chrome is by far the biggest memory hog on typical desktops and when you kill chrome processes your system becomes blazing fast.
                – user7000
                Dec 3 '16 at 2:48










              • Why two awk commands? That is, why not just ... | awk 'sum += $6 END print sum'?
                – wjandrea
                Apr 23 at 6:37










              • FWIW, here's a shorter, clearer version: ps aux | grep "/opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'vsz += $5; rss += $6 END print "vsz="vsz, "rss="rss '
                – wjandrea
                Apr 23 at 17:24










              • Note that the square brackets in the grep command are supposed to avoid matching the pipeline itself.
                – wjandrea
                May 26 at 4:12







              1




              1




              This “works” in that it prints a number. However this number is not all that useful since memory that is shared between several processes is counted multiple times.
              – Gilles
              Jun 9 '16 at 22:38




              This “works” in that it prints a number. However this number is not all that useful since memory that is shared between several processes is counted multiple times.
              – Gilles
              Jun 9 '16 at 22:38












              I imagine in reality it's still good enough because Chrome is by far the biggest memory hog on typical desktops and when you kill chrome processes your system becomes blazing fast.
              – user7000
              Dec 3 '16 at 2:48




              I imagine in reality it's still good enough because Chrome is by far the biggest memory hog on typical desktops and when you kill chrome processes your system becomes blazing fast.
              – user7000
              Dec 3 '16 at 2:48












              Why two awk commands? That is, why not just ... | awk 'sum += $6 END print sum'?
              – wjandrea
              Apr 23 at 6:37




              Why two awk commands? That is, why not just ... | awk 'sum += $6 END print sum'?
              – wjandrea
              Apr 23 at 6:37












              FWIW, here's a shorter, clearer version: ps aux | grep "/opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'vsz += $5; rss += $6 END print "vsz="vsz, "rss="rss '
              – wjandrea
              Apr 23 at 17:24




              FWIW, here's a shorter, clearer version: ps aux | grep "/opt/google/chrome/chrome" | awk 'vsz += $5; rss += $6 END print "vsz="vsz, "rss="rss '
              – wjandrea
              Apr 23 at 17:24












              Note that the square brackets in the grep command are supposed to avoid matching the pipeline itself.
              – wjandrea
              May 26 at 4:12




              Note that the square brackets in the grep command are supposed to avoid matching the pipeline itself.
              – wjandrea
              May 26 at 4:12










              up vote
              0
              down vote













              I knew that chrome/chromium had a task manager, but it doesn't give the total memory used. It turns out that the "Stats for nerds" link in the task manager leads to chrome://memory-redirect/ which does list the total memory used. It would be nice to have external validation of these numbers, as well as a way to get the information on the command line so more could be done with it, but this seems to be the best way available.






              share|improve this answer
















              • 2




                This answer is not valid anymore. See bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=588790
                – eddygeek
                Nov 29 '16 at 12:57














              up vote
              0
              down vote













              I knew that chrome/chromium had a task manager, but it doesn't give the total memory used. It turns out that the "Stats for nerds" link in the task manager leads to chrome://memory-redirect/ which does list the total memory used. It would be nice to have external validation of these numbers, as well as a way to get the information on the command line so more could be done with it, but this seems to be the best way available.






              share|improve this answer
















              • 2




                This answer is not valid anymore. See bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=588790
                – eddygeek
                Nov 29 '16 at 12:57












              up vote
              0
              down vote










              up vote
              0
              down vote









              I knew that chrome/chromium had a task manager, but it doesn't give the total memory used. It turns out that the "Stats for nerds" link in the task manager leads to chrome://memory-redirect/ which does list the total memory used. It would be nice to have external validation of these numbers, as well as a way to get the information on the command line so more could be done with it, but this seems to be the best way available.






              share|improve this answer












              I knew that chrome/chromium had a task manager, but it doesn't give the total memory used. It turns out that the "Stats for nerds" link in the task manager leads to chrome://memory-redirect/ which does list the total memory used. It would be nice to have external validation of these numbers, as well as a way to get the information on the command line so more could be done with it, but this seems to be the best way available.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Jun 14 '16 at 7:58









              Ryan1729

              21325




              21325







              • 2




                This answer is not valid anymore. See bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=588790
                – eddygeek
                Nov 29 '16 at 12:57












              • 2




                This answer is not valid anymore. See bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=588790
                – eddygeek
                Nov 29 '16 at 12:57







              2




              2




              This answer is not valid anymore. See bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=588790
              – eddygeek
              Nov 29 '16 at 12:57




              This answer is not valid anymore. See bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=588790
              – eddygeek
              Nov 29 '16 at 12:57










              up vote
              0
              down vote













              Just quickly calculate the sum of the processes.



              On Mac:



              • go to chrome://system/ and select all reported in mem_usage

              • paste in SublimeText

              • SelectAll (CMD+'A') and SelectAllLines (CMD+SHIFT+'L')

              • CMD+Right (go to eol), Backspace, Backspace, Backspace, ALT+Left, CMD+Backspace

              • Backspace, type '+', CMD+'A', CMD+'C'

              • open Terminal, run python, CMD+V, Enter

              Et voila! "Easy"... 🤓😅



              PS - Shortcut ninjas & 80s/90s Fighting-game players should have no problem with this solution 🤖🕹💾






              share|improve this answer


























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                Just quickly calculate the sum of the processes.



                On Mac:



                • go to chrome://system/ and select all reported in mem_usage

                • paste in SublimeText

                • SelectAll (CMD+'A') and SelectAllLines (CMD+SHIFT+'L')

                • CMD+Right (go to eol), Backspace, Backspace, Backspace, ALT+Left, CMD+Backspace

                • Backspace, type '+', CMD+'A', CMD+'C'

                • open Terminal, run python, CMD+V, Enter

                Et voila! "Easy"... 🤓😅



                PS - Shortcut ninjas & 80s/90s Fighting-game players should have no problem with this solution 🤖🕹💾






                share|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  Just quickly calculate the sum of the processes.



                  On Mac:



                  • go to chrome://system/ and select all reported in mem_usage

                  • paste in SublimeText

                  • SelectAll (CMD+'A') and SelectAllLines (CMD+SHIFT+'L')

                  • CMD+Right (go to eol), Backspace, Backspace, Backspace, ALT+Left, CMD+Backspace

                  • Backspace, type '+', CMD+'A', CMD+'C'

                  • open Terminal, run python, CMD+V, Enter

                  Et voila! "Easy"... 🤓😅



                  PS - Shortcut ninjas & 80s/90s Fighting-game players should have no problem with this solution 🤖🕹💾






                  share|improve this answer














                  Just quickly calculate the sum of the processes.



                  On Mac:



                  • go to chrome://system/ and select all reported in mem_usage

                  • paste in SublimeText

                  • SelectAll (CMD+'A') and SelectAllLines (CMD+SHIFT+'L')

                  • CMD+Right (go to eol), Backspace, Backspace, Backspace, ALT+Left, CMD+Backspace

                  • Backspace, type '+', CMD+'A', CMD+'C'

                  • open Terminal, run python, CMD+V, Enter

                  Et voila! "Easy"... 🤓😅



                  PS - Shortcut ninjas & 80s/90s Fighting-game players should have no problem with this solution 🤖🕹💾







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Aug 23 at 17:55

























                  answered Aug 23 at 17:38









                  Kamafeather

                  13315




                  13315



























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f288589%2fget-chromes-total-memory-usage%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                      How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?