Get chrome's total memory usage
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
22
down vote
favorite
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
add a comment |Â
up vote
22
down vote
favorite
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
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.
â Ryan1729
Jun 9 '16 at 4:42
add a comment |Â
up vote
22
down vote
favorite
up vote
22
down vote
favorite
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
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
memory chrome process-management multithreading
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.
â Ryan1729
Jun 9 '16 at 4:42
add a comment |Â
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.
â 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.
â 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.
â Ryan1729
Jun 9 '16 at 4:42
add a comment |Â
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.
I am not sure that this is working for me. When I run the second command, I get a returned value of338.0M
. 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.
â 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)
â 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.
â eddygeek
Jun 18 '17 at 22:43
1
I would usechrome
instead of justchorm
because if you are running both chrome and chromium, you 'd be seeing total for both.
â R J
Mar 3 at 12:33
Is there any similar solution on Mac?
â Domon
Apr 17 at 11:14
 |Â
show 2 more comments
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.
add a comment |Â
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).
1
This âÂÂworksâ 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.
â 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.
â user7000
Dec 3 '16 at 2:48
Why twoawk
commands? That is, why not just... | awk 'sum += $6 END print sum'
?
â 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 '
â wjandrea
Apr 23 at 17:24
Note that the square brackets in thegrep
command are supposed to avoid matching the pipeline itself.
â wjandrea
May 26 at 4:12
add a comment |Â
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.
2
This answer is not valid anymore. See bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=588790
â eddygeek
Nov 29 '16 at 12:57
add a comment |Â
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"... ð¤ÂðÂÂÂ
PS - Shortcut ninjas & 80s/90s Fighting-game players should have no problem with this solution ð¤Âð¹ð¾
add a comment |Â
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.
I am not sure that this is working for me. When I run the second command, I get a returned value of338.0M
. 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.
â 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)
â 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.
â eddygeek
Jun 18 '17 at 22:43
1
I would usechrome
instead of justchorm
because if you are running both chrome and chromium, you 'd be seeing total for both.
â R J
Mar 3 at 12:33
Is there any similar solution on Mac?
â Domon
Apr 17 at 11:14
 |Â
show 2 more comments
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.
I am not sure that this is working for me. When I run the second command, I get a returned value of338.0M
. 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.
â 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)
â 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.
â eddygeek
Jun 18 '17 at 22:43
1
I would usechrome
instead of justchorm
because if you are running both chrome and chromium, you 'd be seeing total for both.
â R J
Mar 3 at 12:33
Is there any similar solution on Mac?
â Domon
Apr 17 at 11:14
 |Â
show 2 more comments
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.
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.
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 of338.0M
. 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.
â 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)
â 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.
â eddygeek
Jun 18 '17 at 22:43
1
I would usechrome
instead of justchorm
because if you are running both chrome and chromium, you 'd be seeing total for both.
â R J
Mar 3 at 12:33
Is there any similar solution on Mac?
â Domon
Apr 17 at 11:14
 |Â
show 2 more comments
I am not sure that this is working for me. When I run the second command, I get a returned value of338.0M
. 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.
â 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)
â 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.
â eddygeek
Jun 18 '17 at 22:43
1
I would usechrome
instead of justchorm
because if you are running both chrome and chromium, you 'd be seeing total for both.
â R J
Mar 3 at 12:33
Is there any similar solution on Mac?
â 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.â 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.â 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)
â 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)
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.â 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.â R J
Mar 3 at 12:33
Is there any similar solution on Mac?
â Domon
Apr 17 at 11:14
Is there any similar solution on Mac?
â Domon
Apr 17 at 11:14
 |Â
show 2 more comments
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.
add a comment |Â
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 '$a' is changed. When that happens, the changed section will be copied and start to take up RAM.
Whether you can measure how much memory is copy-on-write over-committed I do not know. But at least this explains your over-counting.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Running this:
perl -e '$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.
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.
answered Jun 9 '16 at 5:54
Ole Tange
11.5k1345103
11.5k1345103
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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).
1
This âÂÂworksâ 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.
â 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.
â user7000
Dec 3 '16 at 2:48
Why twoawk
commands? That is, why not just... | awk 'sum += $6 END print sum'
?
â 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 '
â wjandrea
Apr 23 at 17:24
Note that the square brackets in thegrep
command are supposed to avoid matching the pipeline itself.
â wjandrea
May 26 at 4:12
add a comment |Â
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).
1
This âÂÂworksâ 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.
â 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.
â user7000
Dec 3 '16 at 2:48
Why twoawk
commands? That is, why not just... | awk 'sum += $6 END print sum'
?
â 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 '
â wjandrea
Apr 23 at 17:24
Note that the square brackets in thegrep
command are supposed to avoid matching the pipeline itself.
â wjandrea
May 26 at 4:12
add a comment |Â
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).
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).
edited Dec 3 '16 at 4:09
user7000
488420
488420
answered Jun 9 '16 at 6:00
Lev Bystritskiy
1956
1956
1
This âÂÂworksâ 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.
â 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.
â user7000
Dec 3 '16 at 2:48
Why twoawk
commands? That is, why not just... | awk 'sum += $6 END print sum'
?
â 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 '
â wjandrea
Apr 23 at 17:24
Note that the square brackets in thegrep
command are supposed to avoid matching the pipeline itself.
â wjandrea
May 26 at 4:12
add a comment |Â
1
This âÂÂworksâ 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.
â 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.
â user7000
Dec 3 '16 at 2:48
Why twoawk
commands? That is, why not just... | awk 'sum += $6 END print sum'
?
â 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 '
â wjandrea
Apr 23 at 17:24
Note that the square brackets in thegrep
command are supposed to avoid matching the pipeline itself.
â wjandrea
May 26 at 4:12
1
1
This âÂÂworksâ 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.
â Gilles
Jun 9 '16 at 22:38
This âÂÂworksâ 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â user7000
Dec 3 '16 at 2:48
Why two
awk
commands? That is, why not just ... | awk 'sum += $6 END print sum'
?â wjandrea
Apr 23 at 6:37
Why two
awk
commands? That is, why not just ... | awk 'sum += $6 END print sum'
?â 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 '
â 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 '
â wjandrea
Apr 23 at 17:24
Note that the square brackets in the
grep
command are supposed to avoid matching the pipeline itself.â wjandrea
May 26 at 4:12
Note that the square brackets in the
grep
command are supposed to avoid matching the pipeline itself.â wjandrea
May 26 at 4:12
add a comment |Â
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.
2
This answer is not valid anymore. See bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=588790
â eddygeek
Nov 29 '16 at 12:57
add a comment |Â
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.
2
This answer is not valid anymore. See bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=588790
â eddygeek
Nov 29 '16 at 12:57
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
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
â eddygeek
Nov 29 '16 at 12:57
add a comment |Â
2
This answer is not valid anymore. See bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=588790
â 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
â eddygeek
Nov 29 '16 at 12:57
This answer is not valid anymore. See bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=588790
â eddygeek
Nov 29 '16 at 12:57
add a comment |Â
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"... ð¤ÂðÂÂÂ
PS - Shortcut ninjas & 80s/90s Fighting-game players should have no problem with this solution ð¤Âð¹ð¾
add a comment |Â
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"... ð¤ÂðÂÂÂ
PS - Shortcut ninjas & 80s/90s Fighting-game players should have no problem with this solution ð¤Âð¹ð¾
add a comment |Â
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"... ð¤ÂðÂÂÂ
PS - Shortcut ninjas & 80s/90s Fighting-game players should have no problem with this solution ð¤Âð¹ð¾
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"... ð¤ÂðÂÂÂ
PS - Shortcut ninjas & 80s/90s Fighting-game players should have no problem with this solution ð¤Âð¹ð¾
edited Aug 23 at 17:55
answered Aug 23 at 17:38
Kamafeather
13315
13315
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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.
â Ryan1729
Jun 9 '16 at 4:42