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?

                      Christian Cage

                      How to properly install USB display driver for Fresco Logic FL2000DX on Ubuntu?