Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

Steve · 2017-12-02 11:04:16

Firefox esr imo is a lot better than the current quantum 57, not as fast but is not buggy. Ive been using chromium for a few days now and i must say it is a lot better browser in my experience than FF57 in regards to memory usage.

martix · 2017-12-02 14:22:22

@Steve Ungoogled Chromium might be even better!

It's interesting that you still like FF ESR better, because this version made me dislike Firefox. Quantum on the other looks (and works) promising here so far (and there are more improvements coming in the future).

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-12-02 14:32:32

The thing that's worrying me at the moment is that Firefox went over to Rust for v54 and stretch doesn't support that so $DEITY only knows what they'll do when Mozilla push v59-ESR out

Steve · 2017-12-02 14:50:18

martix wrote:

@Steve Ungoogled Chromium might be even better!
It's interesting that you still like FF ESR better, because this version made me dislike Firefox. Quantum on the other looks (and works) promising here so far (and there are more improvements coming in the future).

Might just be my hardware/software mix. Im not real certain but i dont think ff57 handles memory that well when you end the browser session, i read somewhere i cant recall just now whilst researching a memory error that turned out to be an addon problem that it was possible that ff57 dumps memory in a bad way and maybe that can cause file system error. I had to e2fsck the home partition of an arch linux openrc LTS kernel partition twice when using ff57, i uninstalled ff57 and have not had any problems again. Perhaps it was not ff57 but the linux distro, i dont know.

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-02 21:53:28

Think the secret to( at least a big part of) is using Noscript with this new multiprocess Firefox, really don't do all that many about:config tweaks anymore, so noscript definitely makes a difference in system overhead. Let me fire it/v57 up and open a dozen or so tabs, see what it's using with noscript installed.

With 13tabs v 57 + noscript is using.

185.6 MiB + 21.5 MiB = 207.1 MiB firefox
220.1 MiB + 61.7 MiB = 281.8 MiB Web Content (4)

Not bad really, 489mb-ish. Btw yep, an update for it just came out it's v57.0.1 now. Again was something that always aggravated me about this in gnu/Linux, have to wait till whichever repo maintainer get's around to putting this latest package into repo's. Well unless you're running it from a directory and/or likely if you've add the Mozilla repo. Not the end of the world either way.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-12-02 22:07:13)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-12-02 22:02:29

^ The tabs I had open for my measurements were all on forums that do not use javascript.

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-02 22:06:06

Interesting but yeah, again obviously noscript has an impact on this, cause I'm using less with v57.0.1, than you were with Esr and less tabs open. 13 vs 8 ...

Nope actually a bit more but nothing crazy, I cycled through those 13tabs, clicking once on each of them and now it's pulling.

225.9 MiB + 22.3 MiB = 248.2 MiB firefox
271.8 MiB + 62.2 MiB = 334.1 MiB Web Content (4)

Still has 5 more tabs open and not using much more than firefox-esr. Long since came to really like noscript and glad it made it's way to Quantum.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-12-02 22:10:30)

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-02 22:25:12

Anal edit, though technically would need a list of those 8 sites, to really get an accurate and comparable results. Some of it is about:config tweaks too, mentioned no longer do much fiddling with that, stuff like disable prefetch, changing the session store frequency, by default it saves a users session every 15secs, I set this at 300000 or longer and it doesn't seem to matter, looks like FF now saves session on close/crash anyway. Max windows undo, default is 3, I set it to 1, am I really ever going to need to reopen 3 FF/windows I've closed ? Same for max tabs undo, or serialize back tabs thingy. Tend to lower these from 10, a bunch of this little stuff can no doubt add up in terms of system overhead the browser is using.

So reasonable about:config tweakage I feel is prudent, at least it's the way I prefer things. Don't need to do any cross-browser testing atm, so got rid of Chrome, Chromium, Opera for now and only have a couple versions of Firefox. Plus it's somewhat annoying and takes mucho bandwidth keeping them all upgraded, so with no web-dev going on, don't need them right now.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-12-02 22:27:16

I think v57 may have a bit of a memory leak as well:

empty@Xanadu:~ $ uptime
 22:25:25 up 11:52,  1 user,  load average: 0.31, 0.38, 0.33
empty@Xanadu:~ $ sudo ps_mem
[...]
332.0 MiB +  28.6 MiB = 360.5 MiB	firefox
  1.1 GiB +  63.8 MiB =   1.2 GiB	Web Content (4)

Another great feature missing from ESR?

EDIT: 6 tabs open, all of them java-free.

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2017-12-02 22:27:46)

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-02 22:43:08

That's just outrageous, again would install noscript and let it to it's thing + some minor about:config tweakage. I saw that type of thing initially and thus why I opted keeping v56.0.2 until noscript made it over, even the crappy javascript blocker extension I was using before then did drastically reduce system overhead in Quantum and also keeping in mind, that for all the major browsers today, those type of stats are normal now. I refuse to accept that, if my browser is using 1.x+gbs of memory, there better be a dang good reason.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-12-02 22:45:56

BLizgreat! wrote:

would install noscript

I tried that but I find the new "control" screen to be utterly indecipherable so I just removed it again

At the moment v57 looks rather broken to me

Good thing we are using firefox-esr in BunsenLabs, eh?

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-02 22:54:28

At first didn't like it either, though once you dork with it for a bit (hover over stuff), all the normal stuff is still there, temp allow etc. No biggie but from a system resources and even to some degree privacy/security standpoint, noscript is good mojo me thinks. Don't think it/Quantum has any serious memory leaks, though knew there'd be some patches coming down from Mozilla, just due to it being new. So can't 100% say what this latest patch is supposed to address.

Many nixers report serious speed gains, for me it's slightly faster than v56, just slightly, oh well ... Think it's an improvement end of day and hope FF can somewhat rebound from all the browser war battle's they've lost to date.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-12-02 22:55:49)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-12-02 22:57:48

BLizgreat! wrote:

Don't think it/Quantum has any serious memory leaks

Then why is mine using up 1.5GiB?

Are you saying that is normal behaviour?

EDIT: try running yours for several hours and see if you can reproduce this, we should probably think about a bug report.

EDIT2: just restarted my FF under valgrind to see if anything shows up 8)

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2017-12-02 23:06:20)

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-02 23:05:57

Yep open same number of tabs in Chrome-etc and see what it'll be using. It's become the way it is in browserage I guess. Again though whether people want to accept that or find ways to change it is up to them. I'm not putting up with a browser using 1.5gbs, it's not happening and was easy enough to sort out, still have ample speed, if much of any loss in that metric. So each their own kinda thing.

Vll!

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-12-02 23:10:51

It's definitely a memory leak, here's the restarted FF:

216.5 MiB +  55.5 MiB = 272.0 MiB	Web Content (3)
246.7 MiB +  34.5 MiB = 281.2 MiB	firefox

Let's sit back for a bit and watch that sucker bloat...

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-02 23:14:18

Not seeing the same thing here Hoas, as again would say consider about:config tweaks. Yeah if a/the browser is storing 3 previous windows, prefetching webpgs (you might or not want to look at), 10tabs etc etc, yep, it's going to be using more memory. Those things can all be controlled and mitigated. Easily and to great extent. Plus noscript, I don't see that type of behavior.

Can't really see much of any legit reason to use FF v 4.x from the Mozilla archives, my Os could get along fine on a system even with only 512mbs, as is. Someone would have to be mindful about how they're using it and not get crazy with multi-tasking. Still everything would be readily available, streaming HD video, modern browser (FF) etc.
Honestly though, would resort to that, installing FF v4.x, before I'd bother with a crappy(imo) hobby browser like Midori. The "minimalist" browsers are anything but from 1st hand experience on it. They use as much, often more than a properly config'ed latest browser, are often buggy, Midori every time I tried it was heavier, less features than even FF v4, no faster ... actually less so and often buggy, cpu(s) lock-up at 100% and it'd crash often out of nowhere.
Did a comparison thread long ago in #! forum, dwb was decent but still lost out to latest FF + noscript at the time in every meaningful metric.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-12-02 23:18:22)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-12-02 23:18:47

BLizgreat! wrote:

Not seeing the same thing here Hoas

How long have you run FF (v57) for?

My leak was 12 hours in so it might not show up for a while.

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-02 23:28:03

^ True and honestly barely dork with it as of yet. Maybe the patch was released to address something performance or whatever, certainly wasn't released for no reason. Knew it'd start happening and it's reasonable. Quantum is new, Mozilla is going to need some time to adjust and learn to iron out bumps etc. Though considering it went official in late Nov and this patch is already out 2nd of Dec, looks like they aren't asleep at the wheel and are doing what they're supposed to be doing.

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-03 01:12:50

Had to cook dinner/eat and go grab some brew. Either way, hoping Firefox rebounds. Mozilla has to have some serious browser dev skills by this point, been in the field for a LONG time. Again ... doubt Goog Inc will take it to the extremes M$ did, as long as they keep things above board and web-standards compliant. Still though when any one browser reaches 2/3rds or so share, yep web-devs are going to devote more efforts to making sure it's supported on sites-etc they create. It's just a reality and not something any developer can ignore. IE only type sites and stuff with Chrome ? Nope don't really see that happening, still too much influence in Goog's hands atm.

It's bound to have repercussions on the direction the greater webz take etc. To whatever extent and makes peeps like me uneasy, can think of many past precedents in many topics, where xyz got a monopoly position or too much control and would be pressed to think of any such, which didn't end up having a negative effect overall.

Also on second thought when it comes to minimalist/hobby browsers, with the direction things have taken, mayhaps they do have more of a niche now. Would still opt for tweaking mainstream browsers before resorting to using any of them. Quantum will likely continue coming along nicely anyway.

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-03 03:16:36

Yep more browser babble, YAY!

Really tried to like Opera, thing is fast but noticed a tendency to smash cpu(s) and isn't all that light in terms of memory either. Think it's to whatever extent due to the compression servers or whatever else they use behind the scenes. Yep optimized or compressed data, mean less data needs to be transferred, thus yep, should mean better speeds, though de/compression also means more processor(s) overhead too. So watching it's resource usage in top and ps_mem had my nose hairs crawling around. Of course works both ways, data/out compressed, means less data needs to be sent/re-sent so again, should mean net speed boost.

Though same thing with Goog/Chrome, they also have such data compression proxies etc available. Firefox has fiddled with similar occasionally but never seemed to adopt anything in this niche and those projects fell by the way-side. Google has some serious backend muscle they could leverage, to make Chrome faster. Stuff like CDN's and caching servers etc. Less than networking 101, yep, content from a server geographically closer or etc to the client, is going to be completed faster, if done right. Not sure to what degree they've/Goog's bothered with this though would be shocked if it hasn't been discussed or outright deployed.

Long time been hoping to see Mozilla jump on this, though it'd come with a co$t. CDN's and proxy networks aren't free. Whereas google already has most the web cached in one form or another and 20bil/Yr worth of finances to throw in whichever direction they please.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-12-03 03:25:05)

#201 2017-12-02 11:04:16

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#202 2017-12-02 14:22:22

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#203 2017-12-02 14:32:32

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#204 2017-12-02 14:50:18

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#205 2017-12-02 21:53:28

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#206 2017-12-02 22:02:29

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#207 2017-12-02 22:06:06

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#208 2017-12-02 22:25:12

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#209 2017-12-02 22:27:16

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#210 2017-12-02 22:43:08

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#211 2017-12-02 22:45:56

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#212 2017-12-02 22:54:28

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#213 2017-12-02 22:57:48

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#214 2017-12-02 23:05:57

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#215 2017-12-02 23:10:51

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#216 2017-12-02 23:14:18

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#217 2017-12-02 23:18:47

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#218 2017-12-02 23:28:03

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#219 2017-12-03 01:12:50

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#220 2017-12-03 03:16:36

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

Board footer