FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-18-2010, 10:28 PM
András Csányi
 
Default Fire the fox.

On 19 September 2010 00:14, Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it just me? *Or does Firefox get slower every release? *And less stable.
>
> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons (xmarks,
> AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. *Seg fault
> sometimes. *I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does not
> help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla)* and re-emerge.
> Grrrrrr.

Use Chrome/Chromium. At my gentoo the fox won't even start. I don't
know why, I won't to know why... I'm tired about Firefox. :S

--
- -
--* Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando)* -- http://sayusi.hu --
http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi
--* "Bízzál Istenben és tartsd szárazon a puskaport!".-- Cromwell
 
Old 09-18-2010, 10:33 PM
walt
 
Default Fire the fox.

On 09/18/2010 03:14 PM, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:

Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less stable.

I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. Seg fault sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename
~/.mozilla) and re-emerge.


Seems to me to be getting slower. The crashes shouldn't happen, though.
Are you seeing the crash-reporter window after your crashes? I'm not
sure if the firefox ebuilds include the crash reporter or not. Anyone
know? (I think maybe the firefox-bin package includes it.)

If all else fails, I would download a binary version from mozilla to make
sure that you can submit crash reports. They really do get looked at by
the mozilla devs, and bug reports that reference crash reports get serious
attention quickly.
 
Old 09-18-2010, 11:22 PM
Hilco Wijbenga
 
Default Fire the fox.

On 18 September 2010 15:14, Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it just me? *Or does Firefox get slower every release? *And less stable.

Indeed. But FF4 is *much* faster. And much more stable. At least, that
was my experience when I tried it out. I had to go back to 3.6 because
some of the plugins that I need were not yet supported for FF4. At
least the later 3.6 releases aren't as unstable as the previous ones.
 
Old 09-19-2010, 01:57 AM
Thomas Yao
 
Default Fire the fox.

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hilco Wijbenga
<hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed. But FF4 is *much* faster. And much more stable. At least, that
> was my experience when I tried it out. I had to go back to 3.6 because
> some of the plugins that I need were not yet supported for FF4. At
> least the later 3.6 releases aren't as unstable as the previous ones.

Looking forward to Firefox 4, Firefox 3 really sucks sometimes

--
@ghosTM55
Mechanism, not policy
 
Old 09-19-2010, 03:54 AM
yanglh
 
Default Fire the fox.

2010/9/19 Thomas Yao <t.yao426@gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hilco Wijbenga

<hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com> wrote:

> Indeed. But FF4 is *much* faster. And much more stable. At least, that

> was my experience when I tried it out. I had to go back to 3.6 because

> some of the plugins that I need were not yet supported for FF4. At

> least the later 3.6 releases aren't as unstable as the previous ones.



Looking forward to Firefox 4, Firefox 3 really sucks sometimes



--

@ghosTM55

Mechanism, not policy



Using chromium-bin instead fo firefox
 
Old 09-19-2010, 05:45 AM
Lie Ryan
 
Default Fire the fox.

On 09/19/10 09:22, Hilco Wijbenga wrote:
> On 18 September 2010 15:14, Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less stable.
>
> Indeed. But FF4 is *much* faster. And much more stable. At least, that
> was my experience when I tried it out. I had to go back to 3.6 because
> some of the plugins that I need were not yet supported for FF4. At
> least the later 3.6 releases aren't as unstable as the previous ones.

Firefox 4 indeed is smoother (probably due to the new animations,
probably because none of the plugins I used are compatible yet, but
maybe it is just faster); but it is definitely more memory hungrier than
before. In Fx3, it usually took around ~20-25% of my 1GB RAM and that's
with opening a bunch lot of pages; Fx4 generally takes around ~25-30%.

While taking 30% of my RAM is fine when I'm not multitasking, the main
problem is I am always multitasking. With Thunderbird taking another
15-20%, emerge ranging from 5-30%, and X about 5-10%, my computer is
becoming unbearably slow when memory starved.

I've been thinking about adding -Os (optimize-size) to my CFLAGS, does
anyone knows if doing that will possibly bring down memory usage and
speed up the computer?
 
Old 09-19-2010, 06:21 AM
Francesco Talamona
 
Default Fire the fox.

On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less
> stable.
>
> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons
> (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing.
> Seg fault sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems,
> and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) and
> re-emerge.
>
> Grrrrrr.

Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes the
X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as molasses.

Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux.

greets
FT

--
Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17
21:01:33 CEST 2010
Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total
aemaeth
 
Old 09-19-2010, 06:42 AM
Daniel da Veiga
 
Default Fire the fox.

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona
<francesco.talamona@know.eu> wrote:
> On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
>> Is it just me? *Or does Firefox get slower every release? *And less
>> stable.
>>
>> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons
>> (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing.
>> Seg fault sometimes. *I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems,
>> and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) *and
>> re-emerge.
>>
>> Grrrrrr.
>
> Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes the
> X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as molasses.
>
> Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux.
>
> greets
> * * * *FT
>
> --
> Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17
> 21:01:33 CEST 2010
> Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total
> aemaeth
>
>

Well, guess I'm lucky then.
I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other
browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my
personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't
stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock,
noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but
still, I don't see it in a near future.

--
Daniel da Veiga
 
Old 09-19-2010, 08:08 AM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default Fire the fox.

Apparently, though unproven, at 07:45 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Lie Ryan
did opine thusly:

> On 09/19/10 09:22, Hilco Wijbenga wrote:
> > On 18 September 2010 15:14, Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less
> >> stable.
> >
> > Indeed. But FF4 is *much* faster. And much more stable. At least, that
> > was my experience when I tried it out. I had to go back to 3.6 because
> > some of the plugins that I need were not yet supported for FF4. At
> > least the later 3.6 releases aren't as unstable as the previous ones.
>
> Firefox 4 indeed is smoother (probably due to the new animations,
> probably because none of the plugins I used are compatible yet, but
> maybe it is just faster); but it is definitely more memory hungrier than
> before. In Fx3, it usually took around ~20-25% of my 1GB RAM and that's
> with opening a bunch lot of pages; Fx4 generally takes around ~25-30%.
>
> While taking 30% of my RAM is fine when I'm not multitasking, the main
> problem is I am always multitasking. With Thunderbird taking another
> 15-20%, emerge ranging from 5-30%, and X about 5-10%, my computer is
> becoming unbearably slow when memory starved.
>
> I've been thinking about adding -Os (optimize-size) to my CFLAGS, does
> anyone knows if doing that will possibly bring down memory usage and
> speed up the computer?

No it will not.

It's the size of the binary code image that is reduced, you may find that the
firefox *code* in memory is smaller too. But it will do nothing for the data
structures firefox creates to do it's job.

Think of it this way:

You have a MySQL instance taking up say 20MB in memory. You use it to access a
500G database so it uses a whopping amount of memory for the indexes. You
somehow optimize MySQL so that the code is now 19MB. What effect does that
have on the 500G database? Answer: none whatsoever.

And you conclusions about memory usage are wrong too. When free says you have
1G or RAM (this is true) and top says Thunderbird uses 150M and Firefox 180M,
together they do not use 330M. Much of that memory is shared.

top tells you "amount of memory that this process can access"
top does not tell you "amount of memory that this process owns and that
nothing else can access"

--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
 
Old 09-19-2010, 08:09 AM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default Fire the fox.

Apparently, though unproven, at 00:28 on Sunday 19 September 2010, András
Csányi did opine thusly:

> On 19 September 2010 00:14, Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less
> > stable.
> >
> > I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons (xmarks,
> > AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. Seg fault
> > sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does
> > not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) and re-emerge.
> > Grrrrrr.
>
> Use Chrome/Chromium. At my gentoo the fox won't even start. I don't
> know why, I won't to know why... I'm tired about Firefox. :S


If you run Firefox from a terminal, do you get an error about xpcom?

If so, you need revdep-rebuild and possibly re-merge nss.
It's all in the build elogs.




--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:38 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org