Your attitude is born of a disdain for users, and *that* is a very bad thing for the Firefox project.
It's these very users who keep complaining of some obvious and serious memory problem without describing in any detail what their problem is. It's exactly those people who have fiddled with their settings and installed dozens of extensions, and won't admit they caused the problem themselves. Seriously, people, just create a new profile and be done with the problem. If you still think there's a bug in Firefox, please give enough detail that someone can write up a bug report.
Re:Firefox development sometimes resembles playing
on
Firefox 3.0 Preview
·
· Score: 1
What people call the memory hogging bug is actually also a CPU hogging bug, and it is still present in Firefox version 2.0.0.3, even though the bug was reported more than 4 years ago.
If it's been known for four years, isn't there a great deal of detailed information about it somewhere? Isn't it reported in Bugzilla? Why not give us the bug number so we can look at it ourselves?
Re:Stupid comparison after stupid comparison....
on
Firefox 3.0 Preview
·
· Score: 3, Informative
one test 100 open tabs, which isn't a real-life situation, no browser should be expected to be optimized for that kind of workload.
It's not 100 tabs opened at the same time. It's 100 total tabs opened, with only 10 open at any one time. That's a completely realistic scenario, as many users open and close tabs all the time. The fact remains that most people cannot see any serious memory problem in Firefox. Some small percentage of users do, but that does not mean that most others see the same problems. In fact, the problems seem so rare that I hardly see the problem discussed on MozillaZine any more, and I haven't had a serious memory problem in Firefox demonstrated to me in over a year. The last one was a huge memory leak when viewing large image galleries, but that was fixed in an early Firefox 1.5.0.x release. Memory use is simply a non-issue for the vast majority of Firefox users in 2007.
Re:I hope they've fixed the memory hogging.
on
Firefox 3.0 Preview
·
· Score: 1
I've found all browsers use about the same amount of memory, generally topping out at over 100 MB of RAM after a day's use. For a more reproducible browser memory benchmark, see this post:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=4685 25
Re:I hope they've fixed the memory hogging.
on
Firefox 3.0 Preview
·
· Score: 0
All that shows is that there's lots of talk about Firefox's memory usage. If there were an actual obvious and serious memory problem, it would be simple to demonstrate, wouldn't it?
I've tried all the about:config tweaks to try and reduce the footprint. I've spent hours digging into this crap. Firefox 2 is simply _not_ good enough in the memory arena.
Have you tried reducing the memory use of any other browser with any success?
Most users need not be concerned with the fact that the feature exists, much less that there's a setting you can change. Besides, if it were in the preference dialog, some small percentage of users would change it to some insanely large value like 999, see Firefox consume huge amounts of memory, and then ask for the horribly obvious memory hogging problem to be solved. That wouldn't make the memory complaints go away, but instead make them worse.
Re:I hope they've fixed the memory hogging.
on
Firefox 3.0 Preview
·
· Score: 1
Re:I hope they've fixed the memory hogging.
on
Firefox 3.0 Preview
·
· Score: 1
If you think Firefox has that serious of a problem, go ahead and file a bug report. If it did have any bug that serious, there would certainly be a bug reported already, it would have hundreds of votes, and there would be well-known demonstrations of the bug. Where's the evidence for a problem of this magnitude in Firefox?
Re:Stupid comparison after stupid comparison....
on
Firefox 3.0 Preview
·
· Score: 2, Informative
the memory footprint on that thing is far, far beyond ridiculous at this point, not to mention noticibly larger than even IE7's memory requirements.
Is there something wrong with the feature? It does take more memory than if you disable the feature, but that's how it works -- by caching the DOM of recently visited pages so you can go back to them faster. If you don't like it, simply set browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers to 0.
Re:I hope they've fixed the memory hogging.
on
Firefox 3.0 Preview
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You can help curb it by adjusting "browser.cache.memory.capacity" in about:config. It's in KB, so a value of 30000 means 30,000KB or roughly 29MB."
That setting for browser.cache.memory.capacity would cause Firefox 2 and Firefox 3 to consume more memory than the default setting, as long as you have less than 4 GB of RAM installed. Let's stop spreading misinformation about Firefox memory usage, please.
Re:I hope they've fixed the memory hogging.
on
Firefox 3.0 Preview
·
· Score: 3, Informative
And it didn't release the memory until you actually closed the program and opened it again. So you could open 12 pages, close all but 1 and it'd still be using the memory equivalent to those eleven closed pages.
Although Firefox does have memory leaks, what you're describing is far worse than any confirmed memory leak. Perhaps what you're seeing is that memory use reported by the operating system is not going down when you close tabs, but Firefox is at least releasing and reusing memory internally. If what you describe was really what most Firefox users experienced, most users would not be able to use Firefox for more than a few hours before they would have to restart it. There's no way Firefox could get the 14% usage share it has today with such a serious memory problem.
In summary, Firefox does have some memory leaks, but it doesn't leak anywhere nearly as badly as you're describing for the vast majority of users. For most users, it takes many days of use before memory leaks become readily apparent by looking at memory usage numbers alone. The real memory leaks are far more subtle than what you describe, and usually require some sort of memory leak detection tool to track down.
So if another browser sucks it's ok for your browser to suck too?
No, of course not! But if all browsers suck, why say "Firefox sucks"? That implies other browsers don't suck. Why not say "all browsers suck," which conveys what you're trying to say much more clearly?
The point of Firefox used to be that it was lightweight. Now it isn't. This is a clear regression.
Did Firefox at some point use significantly less memory than other browsers? I suppose you can clearly demonstrate this regression? If so, I suppose you have a point. If not, I suggest that you're speculating and are possibly incorrect.
After a while closing the tabs will not make any difference at all in memory consumption.
According to the operating system, no it doesn't make any difference. That's because, due to memory fragmentation, memory is being released somewhere in Firefox's memory pool so that it cannot be returned to the operating system. Memory is being released and reused internally, but not back to the OS. It's a well-known effect that isn't a problem specific to Firefox. All browsers exhibit this behavior.
Generally speaking, memory use (according to the OS) not going down is not a problem. Memory use continuing to rise without bound indicates a problem. If Firefox were truly not releasing memory in a classic memory leak, that's what would happen. Can you give a set of steps that produces a reproducible increase in memory usage without limit?
I don't understand. All browsers use about the same amount of memory, but only Firefox has the memory problem? You're going to have to explain that one pretty carefully.
Ok. I'll try this one, too. I've opened up Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows XP with just this page open, and it has a VM Size of 16 MB. After one reload, it's up to 22 MB. I notice that the ad changed, so memory cache and the Flash plugin are probably responsible for the extra memory, as is memory fragmentation. After another reload, it's down to 20 MB. After the third reload, still at 20 MB. Fourth reload, 24 MB. Fifth, 23 MB. After the 22nd reload, it's using 31 MB. So, the memory is going up over time, but then again, the memory use of any browser will go up over time and stabilize at a higher level. After the 40th reload, VM Size is 35 MB. If I were seeing growth up to over 100 MB as you were, that might indicate some kind of problem. Who knows, maybe Firefox is leaking some memory, but it's not clear when the memory increases only 11 MB after dozens of reloads.
Let's try Opera 9.10. With just this page open, it has a VM Size of 31 MB. After one reload, it's up to 32 MB. After another reload, it's up to 33 MB. After the third reload, back down to 32 MB. Fourth reload, still at 32 MB. Fifth, 33 MB. After the 22nd reload, it's using 33 MB. Opera's memory usage doesn't seem to be rising as fast. Interesting. However, note that Opera's memory use is higher than Firefox's at each number of reloads. After the 40th reload, VM Size is still 33 MB. Hmmm... you may be on to something here. After 40 reloads, Firefox VM Size is finally higher than Opera's. Does it rise higher, without limit, after more reloads? If so, that would indicate a memory leak. Does anyone want to try it and file the bug report?
If you can give a set of steps that causes Firefox to use "up to a gig of memory" and does not cause other browsers to use nearly as much memory, let's have it. Then whatever problem you're seeing can be reported and fixed.
It's not programmer logic. The "fastback" feature was one of the most requested enhancements before it was added. It was at the request of users that the feature was added, not because of "crappy programmer logic." Anyway, the feature seems to use only tens of megabytes at most (at least on the vast majority of web sites), and can be turned off entirely if it's using too much memory for your liking.
I think Acrobat Reader also leaks memory, at least when used as a plugin in a Gecko based browser, very badly, perhaps for the same reason.
An Introduction to R (PDF file)
Opened in Firefox 2.0.0.3 with the Acrobat plugin, VM Size 14 MB
Opened in Opera 9.10 with the Acrobat plugin, VM Size 22 MB
After closing the tab with the PDF file, VM Size did not drop significantly in either browser. Still don't see any problem with memory in Firefox. Remember to open only that one page just after you start the browser if you're going to try this yourself. If you can give us a set of steps that reliably reproduces the problem you're seeing, perhaps it could be fixed...
With these three pages open Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows XP has a VM Size of 175 MB. Huge memory problem in Firefox? No, Opera 9.10 on Windows XP has a VM Size of 171 MB. After closing the tabs in Firefox, VM Size goes down to 46 MB. Doing the same in Opera, VM Size goes down to 59 MB. If anything, it looks like Opera may have a problem releasing unused memory. Keep in mind for a fair comparison that you must open only those sites after starting the browser, otherwise, you could see the built-up memory usage form hours or days of use in a browser that you've been visiting other pages in.
If you can come up with a series of steps that causes high memory usage in Firefox, and not high memory usage in other browsers, maybe you're on to something.
Sorry, but "Open a bunch of tabs that use plugins." isn't exactly a reproducible set of steps. I open a bunch of tabs that use plugins all the time, and I have seen memory usage go up to 400 MB, but memory usage almost always goes back down to below 200 MB after I close the tabs. Don't all browsers use lots of memory when you open a bunch of tabs that use plugins, and then release the memory when you close the tabs?
it strikes me as odd that any kind of browser "feature" would possibly consume 500mb or more memory on a regular basis.
Firefox using 500 MB of RAM sounds like a serious problem to me. Tell us how we can reproduce the problem so someone can write up a bug report and a developer can fix the problem.
they continue to insist that there are no memory usage issues when there is a lot of practical evidence that there are?
Where do "they continue to insist that there are no memory usage issues" and where do you find "a lot of practical evidence that there are"? I find that Firefox does have some memory leaks, and they are being fully acknowledged by the developers. Do you think there are some memory leak reports that are being ignored? If so, you should be far more specific about what these are.
Slashdot Mirror
I've found all browsers use about the same amount of memory, generally topping out at over 100 MB of RAM after a day's use. For a more reproducible browser memory benchmark, see this post: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=4685 25
Most users need not be concerned with the fact that the feature exists, much less that there's a setting you can change. Besides, if it were in the preference dialog, some small percentage of users would change it to some insanely large value like 999, see Firefox consume huge amounts of memory, and then ask for the horribly obvious memory hogging problem to be solved. That wouldn't make the memory complaints go away, but instead make them worse.
Memory usage of around 100 MB of using a browser for several hours is absolutely normal. That shouldn't cause any sort of problem if you have 1 GB of RAM, unless you're desperately short on memory already. I'm not denying that "the system starts to have trouble coping," but it sounds like it's not due to memory use.
If you think Firefox has that serious of a problem, go ahead and file a bug report. If it did have any bug that serious, there would certainly be a bug reported already, it would have hundreds of votes, and there would be well-known demonstrations of the bug. Where's the evidence for a problem of this magnitude in Firefox?
http://scobleizer.com/2006/10/21/the-great-firefo
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,127309-page,6-c
http://oomny.com/2006/03/24/internet-explorer-7-b
http://www.zimbra.com/blog/archives/2006/10/ie_7_
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=468
Is there something wrong with the feature? It does take more memory than if you disable the feature, but that's how it works -- by caching the DOM of recently visited pages so you can go back to them faster. If you don't like it, simply set browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers to 0.
Although Firefox does have memory leaks, what you're describing is far worse than any confirmed memory leak. Perhaps what you're seeing is that memory use reported by the operating system is not going down when you close tabs, but Firefox is at least releasing and reusing memory internally. If what you describe was really what most Firefox users experienced, most users would not be able to use Firefox for more than a few hours before they would have to restart it. There's no way Firefox could get the 14% usage share it has today with such a serious memory problem.
In summary, Firefox does have some memory leaks, but it doesn't leak anywhere nearly as badly as you're describing for the vast majority of users. For most users, it takes many days of use before memory leaks become readily apparent by looking at memory usage numbers alone. The real memory leaks are far more subtle than what you describe, and usually require some sort of memory leak detection tool to track down.
No, of course not! But if all browsers suck, why say "Firefox sucks"? That implies other browsers don't suck. Why not say "all browsers suck," which conveys what you're trying to say much more clearly?
According to the operating system, no it doesn't make any difference. That's because, due to memory fragmentation, memory is being released somewhere in Firefox's memory pool so that it cannot be returned to the operating system. Memory is being released and reused internally, but not back to the OS. It's a well-known effect that isn't a problem specific to Firefox. All browsers exhibit this behavior.
Generally speaking, memory use (according to the OS) not going down is not a problem. Memory use continuing to rise without bound indicates a problem. If Firefox were truly not releasing memory in a classic memory leak, that's what would happen. Can you give a set of steps that produces a reproducible increase in memory usage without limit?
I don't understand. All browsers use about the same amount of memory, but only Firefox has the memory problem? You're going to have to explain that one pretty carefully.
Ok. I'll try this one, too. I've opened up Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows XP with just this page open, and it has a VM Size of 16 MB. After one reload, it's up to 22 MB. I notice that the ad changed, so memory cache and the Flash plugin are probably responsible for the extra memory, as is memory fragmentation. After another reload, it's down to 20 MB. After the third reload, still at 20 MB. Fourth reload, 24 MB. Fifth, 23 MB. After the 22nd reload, it's using 31 MB. So, the memory is going up over time, but then again, the memory use of any browser will go up over time and stabilize at a higher level. After the 40th reload, VM Size is 35 MB. If I were seeing growth up to over 100 MB as you were, that might indicate some kind of problem. Who knows, maybe Firefox is leaking some memory, but it's not clear when the memory increases only 11 MB after dozens of reloads.
Let's try Opera 9.10. With just this page open, it has a VM Size of 31 MB. After one reload, it's up to 32 MB. After another reload, it's up to 33 MB. After the third reload, back down to 32 MB. Fourth reload, still at 32 MB. Fifth, 33 MB. After the 22nd reload, it's using 33 MB. Opera's memory usage doesn't seem to be rising as fast. Interesting. However, note that Opera's memory use is higher than Firefox's at each number of reloads. After the 40th reload, VM Size is still 33 MB. Hmmm... you may be on to something here. After 40 reloads, Firefox VM Size is finally higher than Opera's. Does it rise higher, without limit, after more reloads? If so, that would indicate a memory leak. Does anyone want to try it and file the bug report?
Nice rant, but Firefox does not seem to use more memory than other browsers. See my above posts and the following links:
Radically New IE 7 or Updated Mozilla Firefox 2--Which Browser Is Better?
IE 7 vs IE 6
Firefox 2 - the lean, mean browser
If you can give a set of steps that causes Firefox to use "up to a gig of memory" and does not cause other browsers to use nearly as much memory, let's have it. Then whatever problem you're seeing can be reported and fixed.
It's not programmer logic. The "fastback" feature was one of the most requested enhancements before it was added. It was at the request of users that the feature was added, not because of "crappy programmer logic." Anyway, the feature seems to use only tens of megabytes at most (at least on the vast majority of web sites), and can be turned off entirely if it's using too much memory for your liking.
Opened in Firefox 2.0.0.3 with the Acrobat plugin, VM Size 14 MB
Opened in Opera 9.10 with the Acrobat plugin, VM Size 22 MB
After closing the tab with the PDF file, VM Size did not drop significantly in either browser. Still don't see any problem with memory in Firefox. Remember to open only that one page just after you start the browser if you're going to try this yourself. If you can give us a set of steps that reliably reproduces the problem you're seeing, perhaps it could be fixed...
Just to make my vague, general statements concrete, I picked three sites at random, each of which uses a different plugin:
The official US time clock (Java)
weatcher.com interactive map (Flash)
Panda Pang (Shockwave for Director)
With these three pages open Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows XP has a VM Size of 175 MB. Huge memory problem in Firefox? No, Opera 9.10 on Windows XP has a VM Size of 171 MB. After closing the tabs in Firefox, VM Size goes down to 46 MB. Doing the same in Opera, VM Size goes down to 59 MB. If anything, it looks like Opera may have a problem releasing unused memory. Keep in mind for a fair comparison that you must open only those sites after starting the browser, otherwise, you could see the built-up memory usage form hours or days of use in a browser that you've been visiting other pages in.
If you can come up with a series of steps that causes high memory usage in Firefox, and not high memory usage in other browsers, maybe you're on to something.
Sorry, but "Open a bunch of tabs that use plugins." isn't exactly a reproducible set of steps. I open a bunch of tabs that use plugins all the time, and I have seen memory usage go up to 400 MB, but memory usage almost always goes back down to below 200 MB after I close the tabs. Don't all browsers use lots of memory when you open a bunch of tabs that use plugins, and then release the memory when you close the tabs?
If you still think that Firefox has memory problems that other browsers don't have, please give a specific set of steps to follow that causes high memory usage in Firefox and not other browsers.