Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox To Let Users Control Memory Usage (bleepingcomputer.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the fine-tuned-machine dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from BleepingComputer: Mozilla engineers are working on a new section in the browser's preferences that will let users control the browser's performance. Work on this new section started last Friday when an issue was opened in the Firefox bug tracker. Right now, the Firefox UI team has proposed a basic sketch of the settings section and its controls. Firefox developers are now working to isolate or implement the code needed to control those settings [1, 2, 3]. According to the current version of the planned Performance settings section UI, users will be able to control if they use UI animations (to be added in a future Firefox version), if they use page prefetching (feature to preload links listed on a page), and how many "content" processes Firefox uses (Firefox currently supports two processes [one for the Firefox core and one for content], but this will expand to more starting v54).

20 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. I suppose by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    I would've voted for fixing the memory leaks, but I suppose this is an option too...

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:I suppose by Waccoon · · Score: 2

      In my attempts to track down why Firefox has huge memory problems but Pale Moon v26 does not (and Pale Moon v27 does), I've determined that bad caching policy is responsible for memory consumption, not leaks.

      Firefox will cache the hell out of everything it encounters regardless of the limits you set for the memory cache, up to a certain percentage of total available memory. In recent versions of the browser, most internal memory management settings not in the preferences file seem to be set to "-1" (fully automatic) so there's no way to change them unless you recompile. Bloody annoying.

      Not being an application developer, my only lead on how to track down all the settings involves comparing the code of Pale Moon v26 to v27. Not an easy feat, seeing as how there's over 40,000 new or changed files between those two versions. I've not made much progress on compiling a less stupid build, but I do know the problem is that the browser is just insanely greedy with memory, not that it's "losing" it.

  2. I have no idea how much memory FF uses by Snotnose · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nor do I care. I switched to Chrome years ago because FF flat out got slow, so much so I decided "hmmm, FF, IE, or Chrome. Let's try Chrome".

    Chrome was much faster. 2.5 years ago I got a new laptop with a much faster processor and a lot more RAM. I kept Chrome. It works, usually.

    I fire up FF once a week. My supermarket website (Vons) doesn't work with Chrome (could be the add ons, don't really care). But until Chrome starts to suck I don't feel any need to return to FF as my daily browser.

    TLDR; piss off your long term users, they turn into long term users of something else

  3. GOOD direction by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a very good step in the right direction. There are non-majority but very valid use cases where one might need to limit memory and especially CPU usage and threading when wanted. For example, on hosted or application servers that serve thin clients. Please give as much control to users and system administrators as possible.

    This also holds just as important for single-user systems. One thing I hope they especially pay attention to is some way to quell the rampant misuse of local resources by websites that throw more and more meaningless "fancy" effects at us. Barely a site remains that doesn't fade in and out every single element, loads endlessly, creates tight busy loops, presents continuous animation for no real reason, etc. It just chews through CPU and on battery powered devices, it unnecessarily decimates stored power, it presents never ending barriers and distractions to getting to useful information on sites. Give us tools and settings to slow and limit such nonsense. Return control of our resources to us.

    In the past, Firefox was all about CHOICE and CONFIGURABILITY. For years as Firefox has become "Chrome-ified" in look and mission, user choice has wrongfully and systematically removed in favor of "simplicity". Stop trying to be Chrome, it is not helping anyone!

    Firefox stands as the only remaining main-stream, completely open source, multiplatform browser developed by a community model. Here is a last chance to prevent it from become totally obscure.... EMBRACE USER CONTROL. Differentiate yourself based on that. It is something Chrome sorely lacks. We need real choices and real competition, not a world left with one browser controlled by a single information overlord who lives based on tracking, capturing, and sharing information about us. Been there, done that.... Mozilla set us free once. Please be there to prevent us from sliding back into it again :)

    1. Re:GOOD direction by gravewax · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it is already too late to save firefox. It has alienated and pissed off so many of its previously loyal userbase that I doubt it can recover now. It is all downhill from here on out.

  4. More memory the longer it runs by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

    After two to three days, my firefox memory runs out of control and then I have to restart it.

    And then things are fine for two to three days.

    Right now I have 12 tabs open and it's using 923 mb of memory and 2.7% of cpu (on an i7).

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  5. Re: Host files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If your router supports dd-wrt, it's no tougher than copying and pasting. https://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/DNSMasq_-_DNS_for_your_local_network_-_HOWTO

  6. Also how much memory each tab was using by UpnAtom · · Score: 4, Informative

    A few years ago, Opera could also tell you how much memory each tab and extension was using. Ahhh the good old days.

    1. Re:Also how much memory each tab was using by chihowa · · Score: 2

      I miss my easy insertion abilities. Maybe I'm just getting old.

      They make a pill, er app, for that now.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  7. Re: uBlock-Adblock inferior to NoScript by corychristison · · Score: 2

    Everyone has different needs and wants.

    NoScript does nothing for ads in Android Apps (especially YouTube) or my TV.

    I actually like JavaScript (most of the time). If you want a shitty, barebones, reduced functionality browsing experience, why don't you just use Lynx? You'll save even more bandwidth, and it makes it literally impossible to see any image-based ads.

  8. Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not a perceived problem. My workstation has 32 GB of RAM yet Firefox will still use many GBs if I leave it open for a few days. This happens with addons enabled, and even with a new profile. Chrome doesn't do that. Edge doesn't do that. It's a problem that effects Firefox and not the other browsers. Maybe it's due to memory leaks in Firefox?

  9. Re:How about... by rudy_wayne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unfortunately, back around the time of Firefox 4.0, the people in charge at Mozilla became infected with some sort of toxic brain worms. Since then, they have been on an all-out campaign to completely destroy Firefox, and if you look at the market share numbers, they're doing a wonderful job. The best, most popular browser is now battling Opera for the title of most irrelevant browser.

    And since there seems to be no end of companies who will give Mozilla hundreds of millions of dollars, for nothing, no matter how badly Firefox sucks, it seems unlikely that anything will change.

    Fortunately, thanks to Firefox being open source, there are forks, such as Palemoon, that retain the good features that Mozilla eliminated and avoid the useless crap and pointless changes that Mozilla seems to love so much.

  10. No system impact when using +4 gigabyte by thesjaakspoiler · · Score: 2

    was what those engineering geniuses were always responding when people complained that FF was using 10~50 times as much memory compared to any other mainstream browser. Somehow I still don't believe them.

  11. Re:Host files by buss_error · · Score: 2

    https://pi-hole.net/

    Much better and protects the entire network.

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  12. Re:Host files by Known+Nutter · · Score: 2

    Been using that for years... formally known as "Mike's Ad Blocking Hosts File" -- definitely not malware.

    --
    Beware of the Leopard.
  13. Re: Host files by fisted · · Score: 2

    "Group policy" is a fucking nightmare on its own, as well as a Windows-specific concept.

    Also, it's spelled cronjob. Thanks for playing.

    --
    CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
  14. Just like with Windows by CptLoRes · · Score: 2

    it seems my preferred settings are the exact opposite of what the default ones are.

  15. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Palemoon odesn't even want linux users to use their cut and paste buffers and seem intent in 'unifying cross platform behavor' so that it's just like windows. This dispite the fact the windows cut and paste buffers are there for their use. I don't think they're on our side either.

  16. Re:How about... by Merk42 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...there are forks, such as Palemoon, that retain the good features that Mozilla eliminated and avoid the useless crap and pointless changes that Mozilla seems to love so much.

    But since Palemoon has an even smaller marketshare, it is, by your logic, worse than Firefox.

  17. Re:I just want my "disable Javascript" checkbox ba by Merk42 · · Score: 2

    Developer Tools > Advanced settings > Disable JavaScript ???

    Or use NoScript