FireFox and memory
Pierre Jelenc
FireFox (3.6.13 and several prior versions, as well as 3.5.xx) seems to
devour memory: some 300-500 MB just to load, on a blank page! After
loading a couple of MySpace pages (it's about the only thing I do with FF,
as SeaMonkey has great difficulties with them) I am down to no memory, a
freeze, and usually a mangled .INI that must be restored from backup.
Curiously, there is no crash reported in popuplog.os2.
I start FF with a routine batch file:
set LIBPATHSTRICT=T
set BEGINLIBPATH=E:\Utilities\Net\firefox-3_6_13
E:
cd E:\Utilities\Net\firefox-3_6_13
firefox.exe %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9
Is that huge memory demand normal? By comparison SeaMonkey, which does a
lot more things, takes up about 100 MB at startup, and gobbles additional
chunks much more slowly: an SM-only session can last up to 3 days before I
run out of memory, while a FF-only or FF + SM one lasts an hour or two at
most.
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc
The Gigometer www.gigometer.com
The NYC Beer Guide www.nycbeer.org
Dave Yeo
In theory SeaMonkey and Firefox should use about the same amount of
memory. At least when built with the same version of Gecko. There are no
SeaMonkey builds that are equilavent to Firefox 3.6.x (Gecko 1.9.2).
You might want to test with a new profile to see if that works as well
as going into the preferences and turning various updating, blacklisting
and such preferences off. (Can't remember the proper names right now).
Even better you should go to ftp.netlabs.org/incoming/mozilla and try
out one of the Firefox 4 betas and/or SeaMonkey 2.1pre's. Rich has fixed
quite a bit of the memory wastage in these builds.
Dave
Marcel Müller
Pierre Jelenc wrote:
> FireFox (3.6.13 and several prior versions, as well as 3.5.xx) seems to
> devour memory: some 300-500 MB just to load, on a blank page!
/Physical/ memory?
I am currently running FF (4.0) and TBird (2.0) concurrently on a
machine with only 256MB of physical RAM. With FF3.x is has been similar.
Ok, FF since 3.0 really likes to eat memory, but not /that/ much. In
fact you might check your plug-ins. The common ABP plug-ins and NoScript
for example can double the amount of memory of FF.
Do you use Flash?
> Is that huge memory demand normal?
How did you measure the memory demand?
> By comparison SeaMonkey, which does a
> lot more things, takes up about 100 MB at startup, and gobbles additional
> chunks much more slowly:
This is the way FF behaves too.
> an SM-only session can last up to 3 days before I
> run out of memory, while a FF-only or FF + SM one lasts an hour or two at
> most.
I think there is something related to your profile.
What is the size of your urlclassifier database?
Marcel
Pierre Jelenc
>
> Even better you should go to ftp.netlabs.org/incoming/mozilla and try
> out one of the Firefox 4 betas and/or SeaMonkey 2.1pre's. Rich has fixed
> quite a bit of the memory wastage in these builds.
I don't see any FF 4xxx beta there, only 3,7. I had already FF 40b8pre
installed from another source, and I tried that, with success (see my
reply to Marcel Mueller). My SeaMonkey 2.1 is "21b2pre" and it works fine,
though it's not my default because of the spidery font it uses.
Thanks,
Dave Yeo
> Dave Yeo<dave....@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Even better you should go to ftp.netlabs.org/incoming/mozilla and try
>> out one of the Firefox 4 betas and/or SeaMonkey 2.1pre's. Rich has fixed
>> quite a bit of the memory wastage in these builds.
>
> I don't see any FF 4xxx beta there, only 3,7. I had already FF 40b8pre
> installed from another source, and I tried that, with success (see my
> reply to Marcel Mueller). My SeaMonkey 2.1 is "21b2pre" and it works fine,
> though it's not my default because of the spidery font it uses.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pierre
>
Try firefox-20101204.zip, Rich has just been using the compile date for
labeling.
About the font, read the readme for the font workarounds. Short story is
that the newer builds don't support bitmapped fonts anymore, just TTF and ps
Dave
Pierre Jelenc
>
> Try firefox-20101204.zip, Rich has just been using the compile date for
> labeling.
Ah, right, that's the one I have, I forgot the version isn't given in the
name of the zip file.
> About the font, read the readme for the font workarounds. Short story is
> that the newer builds don't support bitmapped fonts anymore, just TTF and ps
I have the workarounds applied, which make the font annoying -- a slight
improvement on unreadable, I guess...
(It really is a huge stumbling block for me; my eyes are a bit dodgy, with
large floaters caused by posterior vitreous detachment that render bits
and pieces of 1-pixel-wide letter parts invisible or distorted.)
Steve Wendt
> I have the workarounds applied, which make the font annoying -- a slight
> improvement on unreadable, I guess...
Not sure what your problem is exactly, but does this help?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439195#c0
Also, do you have the version of Workplace Sans with bitmaps?
wpsub_bit_04.zip
wpsu_bit_071.zip
Alex Taylor
> > About the font, read the readme for the font workarounds. Short story
> > is that the newer builds don't support bitmapped fonts anymore, just
> > TTF and ps
>
> I have the workarounds applied, which make the font annoying -- a slight
> improvement on unreadable, I guess...
>
> (It really is a huge stumbling block for me; my eyes are a bit dodgy,
> with large floaters caused by posterior vitreous detachment that render
> bits and pieces of 1-pixel-wide letter parts invisible or distorted.)
I'm working on a(nother) re-jig of the font's design, which will
thicken the strokes considerably. It'll also feature a new design
for the bold version - one which actually looks like a proper bold
version of the regular font, and not a totally new design like the
present one. (For those who prefer it to look as much like WarpSans
as possible, I will of course continue to include bitmapped versions.)
No estimates yet on when it'll be ready... I still need to add
Cyrillic and Greek to the bold font, not to mention other tweaks here
and there. HOPEFULLY within the next month or two, but don't hold me
to that.
Here's a little preview of what it looks like without bitmaps:
http://users.socis.ca/~ataylo00/newwpsu_sm.png
I plan to continue maintaining something close to the current
thin-stroke design, but renamed to "Workplace Sans Light".
--
Alex Taylor
Fukushima, Japan
http://www.socis.ca/~ataylo00
Please take off hat when replying.
Pierre Jelenc
> Pierre Jelenc wrote:
>
> > I have the workarounds applied, which make the font annoying -- a slight
> > improvement on unreadable, I guess...
>
> Not sure what your problem is exactly, but does this help?
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439195#c0
It took me a while to figure it out --profiles have multiplied like
rabbits over the years-- but if I make it 11pt (rather than 10) then the
menus are a lot more readable.
> Also, do you have the version of Workplace Sans with bitmaps?
> wpsub_bit_04.zip
> wpsu_bit_071.zip
No, I didn't, thanks for the pointer.
Pierre Jelenc
>
> Here's a little preview of what it looks like without bitmaps:
> http://users.socis.ca/~ataylo00/newwpsu_sm.png
Very nice! That would solve all those problems, thanks.
Mentore Siesto
ha scritto:
> Alex Taylor <al...@altsanhat.org> writes:
> >
> > Here's a little preview of what it looks like without bitmaps:
> > http://users.socis.ca/~ataylo00/newwpsu_sm.png
>
> Very nice! That would solve all those problems, thanks.
>
> Pierre
Wow, really nice!
Mentore