µBlock (uBlock)

Discuss various technical topics not related to Mozilla.
User avatar
mightyglydd
Posts: 9813
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 7:07 pm
Location: Hollywood Ca.

Re: µBlock (uBlock)

Post by mightyglydd »

What's 'uBlock', a product used by Stinky's Rooter?
#KeepFightingMichael and Alex.
User avatar
patrickjdempsey
Posts: 23686
Joined: October 23rd, 2008, 11:43 am
Location: Asheville NC
Contact:

Re: µBlock (uBlock)

Post by patrickjdempsey »

In about:memory, ABP shows up as: {d10d0bf8-f5b5-c8b4-a8b2-2b9879e08c5d}

With EasyList and EasyPrivacy and about 100 custom filters, about:memory is showing 17.5MB on SeaMonkey and 19.2MB on Firefox. I have no idea how that compares to actual memory demands of the extension... but it does seem strange that that would become a 100MB difference as seen on the uBlock graphs.
Tip of the day: If it has "toolbar" in the name, it's crap.
What my avatar is about: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/sea-fox/
User avatar
malliz
Folder@Home
Posts: 43796
Joined: December 7th, 2002, 4:34 am
Location: Australia

Re: µBlock (uBlock)

Post by malliz »

AnimaliX wrote:this discussion goes completely unwanted direction (i definitely did not want to know the opinions from sworn users of ADP)

Never used APB :? Don't like shills though
What sort of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
"Terry Pratchett"
harsha_mic
Posts: 18
Joined: March 18th, 2011, 5:43 am

Re: µBlock (uBlock)

Post by harsha_mic »

using it from development version.
Recently removed NoScript too. Using uBlock's default deny mode..
And firefox is my main browser again :) With almost no hangs during page loads...
harsha_mic
Posts: 18
Joined: March 18th, 2011, 5:43 am

Re: µBlock (uBlock)

Post by harsha_mic »

patrickjdempsey wrote:I have my doubts about memory use claims, but it's notoriously hard to test memory use on Firefox extensions. And some of the wording on the uBlock website makes me wonder if they are just testing cold start-up memory and not actual working memory in making those claims


if i understand you correctly -
details of the methodology for firefox is at below link, which tells me its not simple cold start-up memory..

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/ ... -footprint
User avatar
patrickjdempsey
Posts: 23686
Joined: October 23rd, 2008, 11:43 am
Location: Asheville NC
Contact:

Re: µBlock (uBlock)

Post by patrickjdempsey »

Using internal about:memory page doesn't really seem to show the whole story as those numbers don't usually match the changes seen in the Task Manager. But I personally really don't care as even on my pitifully limited systems, ABP has never caused memory problems. And the only things those tests show me for sure is that Chrome and Safari are bigger memory hogs than any ad blocker.
Tip of the day: If it has "toolbar" in the name, it's crap.
What my avatar is about: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/sea-fox/
harsha_mic
Posts: 18
Joined: March 18th, 2011, 5:43 am

Re: µBlock (uBlock)

Post by harsha_mic »

patrickjdempsey wrote:Using internal about:memory page doesn't really seem to show the whole story as those numbers don't usually match the changes seen in the Task Manager. But I personally really don't care as even on my pitifully limited systems, ABP has never caused memory problems. And the only things those tests show me for sure is that Chrome and Safari are bigger memory hogs than any ad blocker.

hmm...If i have time, i will test my self and see the memory consumption from task manager instead.
So, what you are saying is about:memory is not useful for relative comparison like Raymond did it for uBlock, ABP under similar conditions.

Are there any bug reports in bugzilla regarding these? (ofcourse i did a quick search @bugzilla and cannot make sense of it :) )

Also, just FYI, people (like myself) are excited about this addon, for not only about its memory consumption, but also cpu wise, it is efficient.
gorhill
Posts: 163
Joined: February 10th, 2015, 8:00 am

Re: µBlock (uBlock)

Post by gorhill »

patrickjdempsey wrote:I have no idea how that compares to actual memory demands of the extension... but it does seem strange that that would become a 100MB difference as seen on the uBlock graphs.


The difference is closer to 200 MB.

It takes into account the most important part of memory consumption when it comes to a blocker: the contributed memory footprint to web pages.

ABP and uBlock, by inserting CSS rules into web pages, cause the web pages to consume more memory. The benchmark also measured this. The results of the benchmark: with ABP Firefox consumed more memory than without a blocker, while with uBlock, Firefox consumed less memory than without a blocker.

Short-term memory usage correlate well with higher CPU cycles consumption.

As detailed in the benchmark, I used the "Explicit Allocations" figures, because as per Firefox, it is "the single best number to focus on" with regard to memory usage."
Last edited by gorhill on February 10th, 2015, 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Frank Lion
Posts: 21173
Joined: April 23rd, 2004, 6:59 pm
Location: ... The Exorcist....United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: µBlock (uBlock)

Post by Frank Lion »

gorhill wrote:
patrickjdempsey wrote:It takes into account the most important part of memory consumption when it comes to a blocker: the contributed memory footprint to web pages.

ABP and uBlock, by inserting CSS rules into web pages, cause the web pages to consume more memory. The benchmark also measured this. The results of the benchmark: with ABP Firefox consumed more memory than without a blocker, while with uBlock, Firefox consumed less memory than without a blocker.

Short-term memory usage correlate well with higher CPU cycles consumption

If you know so much then how come you haven't correlated yourself with how to use the hosts file?
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (attrib.)
.
browser_wowser
Posts: 8
Joined: February 10th, 2015, 7:14 pm
Location: USA

Re: µBlock (uBlock)

Post by browser_wowser »

Frank Lion wrote:
If you know so much then how come you haven't correlated yourself with how to use the hosts file?


gorhill is the primary uBlock extension developer. Considering uBlock is optimized to use off the shelf hosts files, I'd speculate he is very familiar.
User avatar
malliz
Folder@Home
Posts: 43796
Joined: December 7th, 2002, 4:34 am
Location: Australia

Re: µBlock (uBlock)

Post by malliz »

I would speculate he has a vested interest in possibly fudging facts :-k
What sort of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
"Terry Pratchett"
User avatar
mightyglydd
Posts: 9813
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 7:07 pm
Location: Hollywood Ca.

Re: µBlock (uBlock)

Post by mightyglydd »

browser_wowser wrote:gorhill is the primary uBlock extension developer.

And would that be you ?
#KeepFightingMichael and Alex.
User avatar
LoudNoise
New Member
Posts: 39900
Joined: October 18th, 2007, 1:45 pm
Location: Next door to the west

Re: µBlock (uBlock)

Post by LoudNoise »

Considering that he didn't introduce himself we had no reason to assume that he was anything else but another user.

That said, I don't use ad blocking and have considered such a difference in memory use angels on the head of a pin since 1 gig of memory became standard.
Post wrangler
"Choose between the Food Select Feature or other Functions. If no food or function is chosen, Toast is the default."
User avatar
patrickjdempsey
Posts: 23686
Joined: October 23rd, 2008, 11:43 am
Location: Asheville NC
Contact:

Re: µBlock (uBlock)

Post by patrickjdempsey »

People should be aware by now that MZ isn't the place for zealous fanboy evangelism. Maybe muBlock is totally legit, maybe it really is everything it claims to be (which would be awesome) but 99% of the time people come here posting impressive sounding statistics it's nothing but snake oil and horse feathers. Especially when those stats involve memory use, because anyone following any memory use thread on Firefox over the last half-a-decade knows that if there's one factor that's virtually impossible to reproduce on two different computers... it's Firefox memory use.

Time will tell where muBlock will stand... especially given the current politicization of the future of AdBlock Plus.
Last edited by patrickjdempsey on February 11th, 2015, 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tip of the day: If it has "toolbar" in the name, it's crap.
What my avatar is about: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/sea-fox/
browser_wowser
Posts: 8
Joined: February 10th, 2015, 7:14 pm
Location: USA

Re: µBlock (uBlock)

Post by browser_wowser »

malliz wrote:I would speculate he has a vested interest in possibly fudging facts :-k


His methodology is available on github. You can test it yourself. Or not. Suit yourself.

patrickjdempsey wrote:People should be aware by now that MZ isn't the place for zealous fanboy evangelism. Maybe muBlock is totally legit, maybe it really is everything it claims to be (which would be awesome) but 99% of the time people come here posting impressive sounding statistics it's nothing but snake oil and horse feathers. Especially when those stats involve memory use, because anyone following any memory use thread on Firefox over the last half-a-decade knows that if there's one factor that's virtually impossible to reproduce on two different computers... it's Firefox memory use.

Till will tell where muBlock will stand... especially given the current politicization of the future of AdBlock Plus.


"zealous fanboy evangelism" is quite the ad hominem. I assume the OP wanted to see what others thought of it here, but appears to have received a generally hostile reception.

Yes time will tell how the extension turns out. From the discussion on github, it should land on AMO soon enough.

mightyglydd wrote:
browser_wowser wrote:gorhill is the primary uBlock extension developer.

And would that be you ?


I have no affiliation with the extension except filing a few bug reports. The Firefox version is still in beta.
Locked