7 ms·

During the experiment, 384 memory checkpoints were taken, which amounts to 1152 seconds or 19.2 minutes. My problem with Firefox has always been with having th

by chops 17y ago

During the experiment, 384 memory checkpoints were taken, which amounts to 1152 seconds or 19.2 minutes. My problem with Firefox has always been with having the browser open for a long time (days) and running multiple tabs, including having an open Gmail window constantly. By that point, Firefox is always sluggish and painful. Closing the browser the natural is a waste of time because it takes so long for the memory to free up, and killing the process altogether is the only thing that does anything to buy me some clock cycles. I'd like to see the results of a long-term test of that nature.

bmj 17y ago
Are you using the latest FF 3.5 release candidate? I noticed this issue with previous versions, but it seems like the latest RC is much better.
- chops 17y ago
  I am. And granted its memory management is getting better with each release (memory usage improved greatly from 2 to 3). Admittedly, I haven't had 3.5 RC long enough for a very extensive experience. I'm speaking primarily of FF3, which for me could get quite painful even switching tabs (especially with Gmail open on one tab). It could be better, but 3.5 RC has only been out a few days. At first, I loved the shit out of FF3, but after a while, I found myself getting furious (at least working on my laptop; on my desktop, which is a beastly gaming machine, I don't have nearly as many complaints).
  - bmj 17y ago
    I found the same problem with FF3, which prompted me to try the 3.5 releases.
ori_b 17y ago
I agree. Closing firefox through file->quit takes at least 30 seconds for me, during which I can hear the laptop's fan spinning up. Usually I just kill -9 it because I don't have the patience to wait. Firefox 3.0.11, on a dual-core low-voltage laptop with 1 gig of ram. It's fast enough to run everything I care about but firefox.
- Tichy 17y ago
  Could be some plugins rather than FF itself?
  - ori_b 17y ago
    It's possible, I suppose, but I seem to remember that it happened long before I added any extensions (I don't have very many - 2 or 3 of the more popular ones like adblock and firebug). I guess it wouldn't hurt to experiment again.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      I had it very infrequently, and I have only 3 plugins installed. Haven't experienced it since I have a "click for flash" plugin. I still suspect that it was one of the may sites I kept open that brought down FF. The browser should prevent that, but if a site can bring down FF, it would be more like a bug than a general shortcoming of FF. It's definitely not reproducable like "open 20 tabs and FF will slow to a crawl".
- JulianMorrison 17y ago
  C/C++ programs that manually memory free at exit are doing it wrong. They ought to (1) write everything to disk they need to save (2) fsync (3) send themselves a SIGKILL. The OS will tidy up the memory.
  - ori_b 17y ago
    SIGKILL? Uh, you know there is a little function called exit() that exits the program. Other than that, yes, I agree with you, but I suspect what's actually taking all the time is paging back in the data that it wants to write to disk when it syncs, and not necessarily freeing the memory.
    - JulianMorrison 17y ago
      SIGKILL because it gives finalizers and at-exit handlers no chance to run. The building has been emptied: knock it down, don't waste time picking it apart brick by brick. I doubt that paging all the stuff it wants to write is the reason. If that were the case, killing it during the grind would corrupt its save files, and the time duration of the grind would be proportional to what needs saving (just a few files of fairly constant size) versus proportional to how much memory it's hogging. I think it's paging all right - it's paging back in every fiddling little object to call its finalizer.
dkarl 17y ago
I always had that problem with Firefox prior to Firefox 2 and continued to have it with the first several releases of Firefox 2. After some update to Firefox 2 I never saw it again. I would call you crazy or a liar for reporting it with FF3 except that I remember being called (essentially) crazy or a liar when I complained about that problem with early releases of Firefox 2. Plus ça change, I guess.
blasdel 17y ago
I haven't had the problem of sluggish old Firefox processes for years -- because it crashes on me at least 10 times per week.

by chops 17y ago

bmj 17y ago

Are you using the latest FF 3.5 release candidate? I noticed this issue with previous versions, but it seems like the latest RC is much better.

chops 17y ago
I am. And granted its memory management is getting better with each release (memory usage improved greatly from 2 to 3). Admittedly, I haven't had 3.5 RC long enough for a very extensive experience. I'm speaking primarily of FF3, which for me could get quite painful even switching tabs (especially with Gmail open on one tab). It could be better, but 3.5 RC has only been out a few days. At first, I loved the shit out of FF3, but after a while, I found myself getting furious (at least working on my laptop; on my desktop, which is a beastly gaming machine, I don't have nearly as many complaints).
- bmj 17y ago
  I found the same problem with FF3, which prompted me to try the 3.5 releases.

ori_b 17y ago

I agree. Closing firefox through file->quit takes at least 30 seconds for me, during which I can hear the laptop's fan spinning up. Usually I just kill -9 it because I don't have the patience to wait. Firefox 3.0.11, on a dual-core low-voltage laptop with 1 gig of ram. It's fast enough to run everything I care about but firefox.

Tichy 17y ago
Could be some plugins rather than FF itself?
- ori_b 17y ago
  It's possible, I suppose, but I seem to remember that it happened long before I added any extensions (I don't have very many - 2 or 3 of the more popular ones like adblock and firebug). I guess it wouldn't hurt to experiment again.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    I had it very infrequently, and I have only 3 plugins installed. Haven't experienced it since I have a "click for flash" plugin. I still suspect that it was one of the may sites I kept open that brought down FF. The browser should prevent that, but if a site can bring down FF, it would be more like a bug than a general shortcoming of FF. It's definitely not reproducable like "open 20 tabs and FF will slow to a crawl".
JulianMorrison 17y ago
C/C++ programs that manually memory free at exit are doing it wrong. They ought to (1) write everything to disk they need to save (2) fsync (3) send themselves a SIGKILL. The OS will tidy up the memory.
- ori_b 17y ago
  SIGKILL? Uh, you know there is a little function called exit() that exits the program. Other than that, yes, I agree with you, but I suspect what's actually taking all the time is paging back in the data that it wants to write to disk when it syncs, and not necessarily freeing the memory.
  - JulianMorrison 17y ago
    SIGKILL because it gives finalizers and at-exit handlers no chance to run. The building has been emptied: knock it down, don't waste time picking it apart brick by brick. I doubt that paging all the stuff it wants to write is the reason. If that were the case, killing it during the grind would corrupt its save files, and the time duration of the grind would be proportional to what needs saving (just a few files of fairly constant size) versus proportional to how much memory it's hogging. I think it's paging all right - it's paging back in every fiddling little object to call its finalizer.

dkarl 17y ago

I always had that problem with Firefox prior to Firefox 2 and continued to have it with the first several releases of Firefox 2. After some update to Firefox 2 I never saw it again. I would call you crazy or a liar for reporting it with FF3 except that I remember being called (essentially) crazy or a liar when I complained about that problem with early releases of Firefox 2. Plus ça change, I guess.

blasdel 17y ago

I haven't had the problem of sluggish old Firefox processes for years -- because it crashes on me at least 10 times per week.