dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2920
share rss forum feed


Oleg
Premium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL
kudos:2

[FireFox] What's up with this talk about FF memory leak?

I hear a lot from people saying FF is a memory hug. So i have decided to try other browsers, and i got the same result with the memory usage. Can someone tell me why people bitch about FF memory leak?



Racerbob
Premium
join:2001-06-24
Webster, NY
kudos:1

I believe that this talk has continued along because older versions did have severe issues using massive amounts of memory. I think that the memory issue with FF is a thing of the past now, but some people still attach that tag to the browser.



howardfine

join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO

2 recommendations

reply to Oleg

Any time anyone complains about memory leaks in Firefox you know they are someone who should be ignored and forums should ban them. Firefox hasn't had memory leaks a user would notice since version 2.5. Memory usage overall dropped significantly over time and, two versions ago, Firefox is as small and speedy as the best of them.

People who say such a thing are clueless and parroting each other about stuff from 10 years ago.



Oleg
Premium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL
kudos:2

Can't agree more. I never i have had a problem with FF memory usage. Another thing is in my opinion FF is faster, and better than other browsers. Maybe it's because i am a true fan of FF.



Vamp
5c077
Premium
join:2003-01-28
MD
kudos:1

said by Oleg:

Can't agree more. I never i have had a problem with FF memory usage. Another thing is in my opinion FF is faster, and better than other browsers. Maybe it's because i am a true fan of FF.

Latest Chrome is neck and neck and possibly even faster, but I don't like how it renders things, it doesn't feel "right". Firefox feels more fluent.
--
75/35 FIOS || MSN Msgr: scott001^gmail_com


Oleg
Premium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL
kudos:2

Firefox renders images, and text almost instantly, and smother.


Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5

1 edit
reply to howardfine

Fx is a memory hog for me and I am not crazy nor should I be banned. Obviously, you use ZERO extensions. There are many VERY POPULAR KNOWN EXTENSIONS that can cause SLOWNESS and/or excessive memory use.

If I wanted a fast browser, I'd use Chrome. It is designed to be fast and have nothing of any real use to it. You want a browser rich with options and tons of extensions to choose from you will get slowness and too high memory use UNLESS you use Opera 12 or below which managed to have extreme richness in options (but few extensions). SeaMonkey is getting like Fx as it gets more and more extensions and already has richness of options (although nothing like Fx has) and it now is using a lot of RAM.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson



darcilicious
Cyber Librarian
Premium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:4

As you so SUCCINCTLY pointed out, the issue is with the EXTENSIONS and not with the BROWSER itself.
--
♬ Dragon of good fortune struggles with the trickster Fox ♬



plencnerb
Premium
join:2000-09-25
Carpentersville, IL
kudos:3
reply to Mele20

Well then it makes me wonder if the problem is not with Firefox itself (or the variants like Waterfox, Palemoon, SeaMonkey, etc), but with the Extensions themselves.

If you run little or no extensions, and little or no plugins, and have what would be considered "low" or non-existent memory usage, that should show that the browser is not at fault.

If there are indeed extensions that causes the memory usage of Firefox to jump through the roof, maybe there would be a way to research those specific extensions, and see if there is a way to fix that? Like the browser itself, extensions are just little programs so to speak, that are made up of lines of code. Fix the extensions that are "memory hogs", and the problem would correct itself.

I know that is probably not as easy as it sounds, but maybe that is what needs to be looked at?

--Brian
--
============================
--Brian Plencner

E-Mail: CoasterBrian72Cancer@gmail.com
Note: Kill Cancer to Reply via e-mail



Oleg
Premium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL
kudos:2
reply to Mele20

I am using 6 extensions. And i do not see an issue with the memory leakage.



Siko
Premium
join:2006-11-27
Mechanicsburg, PA
reply to Mele20

When I use the same addons in chrome and in firefox, I get the same memory usage. There are times were firefox would use LESS memory than chrome does. Of course when I have 16GB of memory, I don't really care how much memory it takes.



Oleg
Premium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL
kudos:2

said by Siko:

When I use the same addons in chrome and in firefox, I get the same memory usage. There are times were firefox would use LESS memory than chrome does. Of course when I have 16GB of memory, I don't really care how much memory it takes.

Exactly.


MarkRH
Premium
join:2005-02-08
Oklahoma City, OK
reply to Oleg

I use 32 extensions with some being disabled until I actually need to use their abilities and the only time I've run into an out of control memory usage was due to a misbehaved javascript that was causing the browser to reload the page in some kind of infinite-loop causing FF to allocate more memory faster than it could clean it up.

Right now it's at 360mb but I've had it running all day with a variety of websites up (Twitter, Facebook, Getglue, TV listings, and others).


Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to Siko

Fx and Chrome extensions are not interchangeable so how are you using Fx extensions in Chrome or vice versa?

I have 16GB RAM and I care very much how much of that memory a browser is using.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to Oleg

I wish this was available for Fx 17 ESR.

»addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox···-memory/



Gone Fishing
Premium
join:2001-06-29

2 edits
reply to Oleg

[FireFox] Fx 17 ESR and about:addons-memory 7


Fx 17.0.8 ESR

about:addons-memory 7
said by Mele20:

I wish this was available for Fx 17 ESR.

»addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox···-memory/

Fx 17.0.8 ESR
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130905 Firefox/17.0 - Build ID: 20130905000503

Works Great!
--
non nova, sed nove
primum non nocere

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5

You have a nightly version of Fx? So what does that have to do with Fx 17.0.8 ESR? This extension cannot be installed on Fx 17.0.8 ESR so I don't what you are trying to say.



Gone Fishing
Premium
join:2001-06-29

said by Mele20:

You have a nightly version of Fx? So what does that have to do with Fx 17.0.8 ESR? This extension cannot be installed on Fx 17.0.8 ESR so I don't what you are trying to say.

Huh? I don't know what you mean.
--
non nova, sed nove
primum non nocere

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5

Your screenshot says you have "nightly esr 17 update channel". I'm on the "esr update channel" and it is NOT nightly.

Mozilla Addons says this extension is NOT available for Fx 17 ESR. So, you have some other Fx version...a nightly version apparently.

The extension author says the extension is avalable only for Fx19 and above.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson



Oleg
Premium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL
kudos:2

1 edit

Well you can change ver. string to make extension work with the newer or older version of FF.



Gone Fishing
Premium
join:2001-06-29

1 edit
reply to Gone Fishing

Re: [FireFox] Fx 17 ESR and about:addons-memory 7


Fx 17.0.8 ESR
Fx 17.0.8 ESR
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/17.0 - Build ID: 20130805152501
--
non nova, sed nove
primum non nocere


chrisretusn
Retired
Premium
join:2007-08-13
Philippines
kudos:1
reply to Oleg

Re: [FireFox] What's up with this talk about FF memory leak?

I am perfectly happy with Firefox, I have 92 extension installed.
--
Chris
Living in Paradise!!


Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to Gone Fishing

Re: [FireFox] Fx 17 ESR and about:addons-memory 7

So, did you change the version string? I don't want to do that. Years ago I did it all the time but this would be changing it to work with an earlier version of Fx not a later one. That could cause problems. At any rate, since Addons site and the author himself says it won't work on Fx 17 you should have made it clear you downloaded it from some other browser (as Fx 17 will not download it) and then changed the version string in order to force it to work on Fx 17.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson



therube

join:2004-11-11
Randallstown, MD
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to Oleg

Re: [FireFox] What's up with this talk about FF memory leak?

> I hear
> why people bitch about FF memory leak

Because people don't know what they're talking about.
Because people "hear".

> decided to try other browsers, and i got the same result with the memory usage

Ah, the truth be told.

> older versions did have severe issues using massive amounts of memory

In general, no.

> the memory issue with FF is a thing of the past now

In general, no.

> Memory usage overall dropped significantly

I would just say, dropped, & leave it at that.
There will always be a tug of war over memory usage vs. features.

> Fx is a memory hog for me

It is certainly not svelte, but calling it a hog is going overboard, I'd say.

> KNOWN EXTENSIONS that can cause SLOWNESS and/or excessive memory use

Very true.

> SeaMonkey is getting like Fx as it gets more and more extensions

SeaMonkey has no more or less extensions then it has had for years.
What you may add to it is another story.

> it now is using a lot of RAM

I'd say more likely you are doing things that are causing it to use a lot of RAM.

> "low" or non-existent memory usage

That would be a new Profile, open FF, loading about:blank.
You aren't going to get any lower then that.
Everything from there, anything you do from there, it goes up.

> research those specific extensions

Problematic extensions
Blocklisting
Blocked Add-ons
Bugzilla

> I have 16GB of memory, I don't really care how much memory it takes

Well actually you would if you're using a 32-bit browser & get up oh, it could be anywhere from maybe 2.5 to 3.5 GB of RAM usage & have FF quit (which sucks) due to OOM conditions.

Or if you were using a 64-bit browser, allowing you to actually use more RAM without OOM issues, but at some point performance degrades to the point where you say, "what's up with this!".

x64 & lots of RAM are far from an end all.

> about:addons-memory 7

about:memory, just not a pretty ;-).

> about:addons-memory 7

Will run in FF 17, if you change its em:minVersion (or use other work-arounds) in install.rdf:

    <!-- Firefox -->
    <em:targetApplication>
      <Description>
        <em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em:id>
        <em:minVersion>17.0</em:minVersion>
        <em:maxVersion>22.*</em:maxVersion>
      </Description>
    </em:targetApplication>
 


therube

join:2004-11-11
Randallstown, MD

> about:addons-memory 7

Looks like that does not work in SeaMonkey 2.23a2.
Don't know about FF 26?
(So it was short lived, an hour or so, for me.)


redwolfe_98
Premium
join:2001-06-11
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to howardfine

i agree with howard.. it seems that most people who talk about "memory leaks" have no clue what they are talking about..

however, i will say that FF uses a hell of a lot of memory, on my computer.. my guess is that the "adblock plus" addon, along with the blocklists that i use with it, causes the high amount of memory-usage..