How many Chrome tabs can you open with 2TB RAM?

[CPotter]

 

[TheEpicDuck]

 What music is used around the 11 minute mark? Also great video

[TVwazhere]

[mariushm]

With 2 TB of ram, I would imagine the limitation would be the maximum number of processes/file handles that can be kept open by Windows, something like 40-60k in Windows I think.

With auto page file, I imagine the memory used by processes (each tab is a process more or less) that are inactive would be paged to swap file, so you'd basically fill the ssd or mechanical drive.

Maybe Chrome's internal management of processes would slow down to a crawl, as it would be optimized for a few tens of hundreds or tabs, not thousands.

[WereCatf]

Quote

How many Chrome tabs can you open with 2TB RAM?

Three?

[simson0606]

With this many tabs you are probably getting close to the maximum amount of threads that Windows can manage. Each tab probably (This is my guess) has its own thread assigned to it. and 6000 threads is a lot to manage... (about 100 per core to schedule...)

[papajo]

2 hours ago, CPotter said:

 

I think the system should not slow down that way despite so many tab (due to memory capacity clocks and cores ) I believe that what was slowing you down was windows managing the memory swap folder which tries to take of the load off of RAM and writes it into the hard disk that would lead to some bottlenecks..

 

Any chance you try to run the without a swap file (so that everything will load on RAM directly and nothing else) ?

[Texno]

I absolutely love these "testing absurd stuff" type videos, but I wish you guys would take it to the next step. It would be fun to see how Windows/Linux/MacOS compare, how Chrome/Firefox/Edge/Opera/Whatever compare

[sub68]

I can say that sk hynix is a really reliable ram my 2011 system still runs it and hasn't have any ram problems  

[Guest]

Dang, I was really hoping you would run some tests other than chrome, like Large FFTs on Prime95

[Radium_Angel]

This is weird, I opened two hundred Chrome tabs, just as Linus did, and my usage was only at just over 2.5 GB of RAM.

Interesting....

Of course, I run lots of ad-blockers and other scripting protections, so that may strip out a lot.

[Egg-Roll]

Yea... This would have saved a tree, ink, and time.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tab-count/cfokcacdaonnckdmopmcgeanhkebeaio

 

You hit the limit for chrome more than the OS, you also likely hit the cpu limit if it was floating around 90%+ At least that is my experience 

 

Also can't watch the "crazy nas video"

[caincha]

Opened the video just to unlike it. I mean come on ¬¬

[oldmobie]

Glad I'm not the only one who thought Linus looked like a cyberman in those headphones.

[RejZoR]

10 hours ago, papajo said:

I think the system should not slow down that way despite so many tab (due to memory capacity clocks and cores ) I believe that what was slowing you down was windows managing the memory swap folder which tries to take of the load off of RAM and writes it into the hard disk that would lead to some bottlenecks..

 

Any chance you try to run the without a swap file (so that everything will load on RAM directly and nothing else) ?

Though that's dumb design. There is literally NO point in paging to disk when you have literally oceans of RAM available for use. It should start paging inactive memory when there is a bigger RAM requirement and RAM needs to be free up. Until that happens, pagefile shouldn't ever be touched, no matter how inactive anything is.

[Radium_Angel]

32 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Until that happens, pagefile shouldn't ever be touched, no matter how inactive anything is.

Windows has a ton of legacy code in it, and it's probably hardcoded somewhere to page to drive, regardless of how much RAM you have, and if I recall my reading of old discussions properly, the prevailing wisdom is don't turn off the pagefile regardless of how much RAM you have, because windows will throw a fit, because of legacy/poor coding.

 

[Loote]

17 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Though that's dumb design. There is literally NO point in paging to disk when you have literally oceans of RAM available for use. It should start paging inactive memory when there is a bigger RAM requirement and RAM needs to be free up. Until that happens, pagefile shouldn't ever be touched, no matter how inactive anything is.

Probably no one thought of defining oceans of RAM and if you have just a few gigs of free memory, it might be a good idea to swap some stuff so that when you need the rest of you're memory you'll have to swap 100 MB not 3 GB(in case of a normal system usage).

[hishnash]

Another example of someone attempting the chrome tab nightmare, apparently chrome was usable upto 4000 tabs. And the OS continued to be fully responsive even when chrome hard locks up.

At the end of the video he does however talk to a use case were having large amount of memory make sense not just in the server space but also (some) workstation workloads.
 

[RejZoR]

41 minutes ago, Loote said:

Probably no one thought of defining oceans of RAM and if you have just a few gigs of free memory, it might be a good idea to swap some stuff so that when you need the rest of you're memory you'll have to swap 100 MB not 3 GB(in case of a normal system usage).

I have 32GB RAM. I don't really want anything paging to SSD until memory usage goes past lets say 20GB. Then it should start paging oldest stuff and when things almost start to run pout, page more. It's weird how OS isn't flexible in this regard given 32GB RAM and more isn't really some insane exotic stuff. 2TB is, but 32GB+, not really. And my system rarely goes past like 5GB of RAM usage under regular desktop use. I only cap it when compressing huge data with 7zip using huge dictionary and all 12 threads where it eats up like 23GB of RAM...

[Arturo Tabera]

You need to use Win10 Enterprise to take advantage of all 128 cores. But you only activated 64 anyway. So Win 10 pro is fine. https://www.anandtech.com/show/15483/amd-threadripper-3990x-review/3

[msmafra]

Have you guys thought of trying it on Linux and macOS to compare the way each system would deal with the same situation?

[GreenScarz]

Is there a reason we didn't automate this process? Could've used Python to open new tabs automatically until the machine crashed:

 

import webbrowser
import os
import time

chrome_path = 'C:/Program Files (x86)/Google/Chrome/Application/chrome.exe %s'

os.startfile(
    'C:/Program Files (x86)/Google/Chrome/Application/chrome.exe', 
    "open"
)

x = 0
while isinstance(x, int) is True:
    webbrowser.get(chrome_path).open_new('lttstore.com')
    x += 1
    print(x)

    time.sleep(1)

 

[AGV]

Can you make a test of what browser can load most pages on the same system?

And do one with "background/taps loads enable" vs "background/taps loads disable" 

[Loote]

I've opened over 700 tabs in Firefox on 16GB of ram, they just got unloaded, this way CPU is also not an issue.

[Poet129]

2tb ram vs 2tb pagefile in windows lol....