-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 96
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Memleaks #424
Comments
This is on ElectronMail v4.12.4 on Windows 10. |
The actual significant memory leak was resolved in the recent / https://github.com/vladimiry/ElectronMail/releases/tag/v4.12.4 release. Having the fix enabled, I was observing the memory usage for one account for 3 days and it was, in general, looking stable. At the moment I have no reason to believe that the possible remaining leaks are caused by the app-related code but by the dependencies and/or loaded in the webviews stuff (like @ProtonMail web clients). You can for example open the same 9 mailboxes in the regular Chromium-based browser (ideally same version used in the app) and see what happens. Doing that compare only the chromium/renderer-related @electron processes, not all of them. There is no plan to debug the stuff in the near future. |
If you calculated and listed things correctly, then given just 200 mails in all mailboxes, having 3 processes with 1.9GB memory consumption of each looks like a potential issue. |
doesn't seem to be reliably reproducible, currently 10d+ process uptime and relatively stable at about 512MB, running v4.12.5 5f1ec77 currently. |
Hi,
I'm using 9 mailboxes currently with a total of less than 200 mails in all mailboxes combined (all folders).
In my case that's a total of ~6.5GB memory usage currently with 3 of the processes taking around 1.9GB each.
After restarting the application and activating each account once I'm at around 1GB memory.
I've updated all mailboxes to not use local storage and memory usage jumped to ~2GB temporarily while saving and dropped to the previous value of ~1GB just after.
I get roughly the same memory usage both with and without local storage (including after restart).
I don't think this is the same as #372 as I would then expect initial high usage.
I don't have numbers over time yet as I just noticed this today.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: