MozillaZine

63.0b quite slower than 62.0?

Discussion about official Mozilla Firefox builds
harmand
 
Posts: 12
Joined: November 25th, 2010, 1:10 am

Post Posted September 25th, 2018, 12:08 am

As soon as I upgraded (beta channel) from 62.0 to 63.0 I noticed a considerable performance slowdown, especially related to the opening of web pages.
Every time it has to connect to a URL, in the current tab or in a new one, the browser seems to... wait quite a lot (say 8-10 seconds) for something, while nothing seems to happen apart from the dot in the tab title moving back and forth.
This did not occur with the previous releases and does not happen with other browsers, which keep loading pages as fast (or slow, depending on points of view) as usual. So that know, in my computer at least, Firefox has turned from being definitely the fastest browser to being definitely the slowest.

At first I thought it was a problem of the early betas, but now I see it still persists in beta 8.
So I'm wondering: can this behaviour be computer-specific (some incompatibility between FF63 and my system, which remained unchanged in the meantime) or is it related to the 63 branch itself?

DanRaisch
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 120448
Joined: September 23rd, 2004, 8:57 pm
Location: Somewhere on the right coast

Post Posted September 25th, 2018, 4:46 am

Are you testing version 63 in a separate, new and unmodified profile or testing with the same profile used with previous versions with existing extensions in place?
What security software is running on that system?

harmand
 
Posts: 12
Joined: November 25th, 2010, 1:10 am

Post Posted September 25th, 2018, 9:52 am

Thanks for your answer.

I'm using FirefoxPortable and I upgraded it from 62 to 63 in the same way I did in the past (Help > About... > Check...).
The (single) user profile and the installed extensions remained unchanged during the upgrade, as usual.
Also the security software (avast) and the whole OS environment, actually not involved in the upgrade, are the same as before.
The only noticeable "unusual" thing was the mentioned performance slowdown. :]

DanRaisch
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 120448
Joined: September 23rd, 2004, 8:57 pm
Location: Somewhere on the right coast

Post Posted September 25th, 2018, 10:06 am

Version 63 is a beta version of Firefox while 62.0.2 is the current release version. Unless you specifically want to run a pre-release version, which may contain regressions or new bugs, you might want to switch from the beta channel to the release channel. https://www.askvg.com/mozilla-updates-f ... d-release/

Any time you update Firefox, particularly on a non-release channel, there is a risk that previously installed extensions will become problematic if they have not also been updated to be compatible with that new Firefox release. Also, an updated browser may not be properly recognized by security software as an authorized/approved application, which may cause performance issues.

harmand
 
Posts: 12
Joined: November 25th, 2010, 1:10 am

Post Posted September 25th, 2018, 11:15 pm

I'm not "complaining" about performance slowdown.
I know beta versions can be problematic; that is their... other side of the coin.
I'm just wondering why this latest "branch jump" introduced such an effect, while the previous ones (since FF 58, when I switched to the beta channel) did not.
Just a technical curiosity. I hoped someone could know.

As to the extensions, they don't seem to be involved, as disabling them has no effect on the issue.
Anyway, nothing serious after all. Let's wait and see if version 63, when officially released, will be as fast as 62 or not. :]

GHM113

User avatar
 
Posts: 688
Joined: December 16th, 2015, 3:59 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Post Posted September 25th, 2018, 11:39 pm

I doubt 63 performance will improve after it hits release channel. What addons do you have installed?
Sorry for my poor English.

Brummelchen
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: March 19th, 2005, 10:51 am

Post Posted September 26th, 2018, 1:32 am

any new quantum build has less old xul code - and rust gets improvements. pure firefox is incredible fast. but for the topic - how do you measure that 63 is slower as 62 on your system? is measuring reliable and reproducible for us?

Are You A Wiiizard?
 
Posts: 323
Joined: August 30th, 2012, 4:27 am

Post Posted September 26th, 2018, 3:05 am

Try with a non-portable version. Portable versions are slower than normally installed versions and I wouldn't be surprised if it is the compatibility between the two.

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 19162
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted September 26th, 2018, 11:16 am

Portable versions are slower than normally installed versions

Why?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

DanRaisch
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 120448
Joined: September 23rd, 2004, 8:57 pm
Location: Somewhere on the right coast

Post Posted September 26th, 2018, 11:25 am

Portable versions are slower than normally installed versions and

I'd call that an unwarranted generalization. If the portable version is installed on the hard drive I would expect to see little or no performance difference vs the regular installed version of Firefox. If the portable version is installed on a flash drive, particularly an older, inexpensive one, there might be some lag while data is read from/written to that flash drive. Still, it shouldn't amount to enough difference to be objectionable and certainly not 8 to 10 seconds.

tomatoshadow2

User avatar
 
Posts: 355
Joined: May 11th, 2017, 9:52 am

Post Posted September 26th, 2018, 11:37 am

Do you specifically want to do testing? For everyday testing Beta is good, so is Nightly, as Dan mentions stay with the release channel build for best quality. Also, you can also keep track of bugs that might affect you.

Are You A Wiiizard?
 
Posts: 323
Joined: August 30th, 2012, 4:27 am

Post Posted September 26th, 2018, 6:09 pm

DanRaisch wrote:
Portable versions are slower than normally installed versions and

I'd call that an unwarranted generalization. If the portable version is installed on the hard drive I would expect to see little or no performance difference vs the regular installed version of Firefox. If the portable version is installed on a flash drive, particularly an older, inexpensive one, there might be some lag while data is read from/written to that flash drive. Still, it shouldn't amount to enough difference to be objectionable and certainly not 8 to 10 seconds.


It was a while ago using portable app launcher but I was seeing quite a difference for some reason on the same drive.

DanRaisch
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 120448
Joined: September 23rd, 2004, 8:57 pm
Location: Somewhere on the right coast

Post Posted September 26th, 2018, 6:28 pm

USB or hard drive?

Are You A Wiiizard?
 
Posts: 323
Joined: August 30th, 2012, 4:27 am

Post Posted September 26th, 2018, 6:42 pm

DanRaisch wrote:USB or hard drive?


HDD but FF is on a SSD now so I doubt it would make any diff now.

DinGo
 
Posts: 126
Joined: June 18th, 2004, 12:29 pm
Location: Stockport UK

Post Posted September 27th, 2018, 3:02 pm

harmand wrote:As soon as I upgraded (beta channel) from 62.0 to 63.0 I noticed a considerable performance slowdown, especially related to the opening of web pages.
Every time it has to connect to a URL, in the current tab or in a new one, the browser seems to... wait quite a lot (say 8-10 seconds) for something, while nothing seems to happen apart from the dot in the tab title moving back and forth.
This did not occur with the previous releases and does not happen with other browsers, which keep loading pages as fast (or slow, depending on points of view) as usual. So that know, in my computer at least, Firefox has turned from being definitely the fastest browser to being definitely the slowest.

At first I thought it was a problem of the early betas, but now I see it still persists in beta 8.
So I'm wondering: can this behaviour be computer-specific (some incompatibility between FF63 and my system, which remained unchanged in the meantime) or is it related to the 63 branch itself?


For me version 63.0 beta10 has speeded things up a lot.

Return to Firefox Builds


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest