MozillaZine

Latest Version a Memory Hog AGAIN

User Help for Mozilla Firefox
TwistedWitch
 
Posts: 7
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 6:25 am

Post Posted January 4th, 2012, 8:45 am

Are you ever gonna sort the ridiculous way that certain versions of FF hog the memory. I just upgraded cos I got a pop up message and now I have to wait ages for the pages to unfreeze again and FF is hogging nearly 1.5 gbs of RAM! Blinkin ridiculous

RobertJ
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 10781
Joined: October 15th, 2003, 7:40 pm
Location: Chicago IL/Oconomowoc WI

Post Posted January 4th, 2012, 8:54 am

Mozillazine wrote:We folks are not part of Mozilla.
Established in 1998, MozillaZine is an independent Mozilla news, community and support site. MozillaZine is not run by the Mozilla Foundation and is not an official part of the Mozilla project.
MozillaZine is hosted at the Open Source Lab at Oregon State University.


BTW - I'm using FF10b2, have 18 tabs open and over 20 add-ons. RAM use is 235M

Image

.
FF 66.0.1 - FF 67b4 - FF 68a - TB 60.6 - Mac OSX 10.13.6
Computers I've used: IBM 7094/UNIVAC 1108/IBM 360/DEC PDP11/DEC VAX-11 780/DEC VAXstation 8000/Sun SPARCstation 2/Mac from 1984 to 2019

dfoulkes

User avatar
 
Posts: 22437
Joined: June 28th, 2008, 10:31 pm
Location: Mesquite, Nevada

Post Posted January 4th, 2012, 10:25 am

I sure wish people who use this board would do a little reading about who we are before that start ranting :!: ](*,) !

TwistedWitch
It's very possible that you have an extension(s) that doesn't like the new version... one way to determine that is to start Firefox in safe-mode which will disable your extensions during its running.
This is only for Firefox safe-mode...Don't check off any of it's safe-mode boxes...
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Safe_Mode

Depending on the results you can post back here for more help.
As you can see she's (The CAT) always alert and on the prowl for Meoware !!

mightyglydd

User avatar
 
Posts: 9344
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 7:07 pm
Location: Hollywood Ca.

Post Posted January 4th, 2012, 10:31 am

TwistedWitch wrote: Blinkin ridiculous


Not really, you're testing a Beta version......... :-"
#KeepFightingMichael

dfoulkes

User avatar
 
Posts: 22437
Joined: June 28th, 2008, 10:31 pm
Location: Mesquite, Nevada

Post Posted January 4th, 2012, 10:45 am

mightyglydd wrote:
TwistedWitch wrote: Blinkin ridiculous


Not really, you're testing a Beta version......... :-"

OH!!!... I didn't notice.... AND THAT TOOOOOO :lol:
As you can see she's (The CAT) always alert and on the prowl for Meoware !!

RobertJ
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 10781
Joined: October 15th, 2003, 7:40 pm
Location: Chicago IL/Oconomowoc WI

Post Posted January 4th, 2012, 10:50 am

So am I and,
RobertJ wrote:I'm using FF10b2, have 18 tabs open and over 20 add-ons. RAM use is 235M


Image

.
FF 66.0.1 - FF 67b4 - FF 68a - TB 60.6 - Mac OSX 10.13.6
Computers I've used: IBM 7094/UNIVAC 1108/IBM 360/DEC PDP11/DEC VAX-11 780/DEC VAXstation 8000/Sun SPARCstation 2/Mac from 1984 to 2019

VanillaMozilla
 
Posts: 13808
Joined: November 7th, 2005, 11:26 am

Post Posted January 4th, 2012, 11:13 am

TwistedWITCH wrote:AGAIN

So fix it the same way you did the last time. You should know the drill by now.

This is a support forum, by and for users. So unless you have a support question, bye.

RobertJ
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 10781
Joined: October 15th, 2003, 7:40 pm
Location: Chicago IL/Oconomowoc WI

Post Posted January 4th, 2012, 11:34 am

.

TwistedWitch

Image

.
FF 66.0.1 - FF 67b4 - FF 68a - TB 60.6 - Mac OSX 10.13.6
Computers I've used: IBM 7094/UNIVAC 1108/IBM 360/DEC PDP11/DEC VAX-11 780/DEC VAXstation 8000/Sun SPARCstation 2/Mac from 1984 to 2019

cecr
 
Posts: 280
Joined: July 3rd, 2009, 6:10 am

Post Posted January 4th, 2012, 4:13 pm

although the Op hasn't gone about it the right way. he does have a point. The memory use of FF for at least some users is ridiculous and despite the hype about later versions being so much better at memory management, for some, efficient memory use is just a dream.

in my case, my (fairly old) system has 1GB ram. I regularly have to close FF down because available ram drops so low that not only does FF not work, but very little does either. My ram REGULARLY goes up to 700MB if I don't close it down. With 700MB used, everything just crawls, and sometimes I am lucky to be able to close FF because it and everything is so unresponsive.

I've installed Memory Restart so I can easily monitor memory, and I close FF when it gets to 500MB used. Its not always possible to close it down though - like when uploading or downloading a file. In such cases, FF slows so much that I am forced to cancel the up/down load so I can restart FF.

When all is said and done, to have an application that consumes ram and doesn't free it up when no longer needed is a sign of a badly designed app. In the past I have defended FF from accusations of memory loss by saying the memory is used up by saving each closed tab and its history, (the more tabs and the more sites browsed, the more memory is retained) but I know that isn't true - if I start FF to its blank (home) page and just leave it without visiting any sites, or opening any times, within a few hours it will have consumed 200-300MB of ram. To all intents and purposes, FF is idle and shouldn't use any more than the 85MB it uses with a restart, but it does. So where does that memory go? Its not tabs or history as there isnt any. It isn't bad add-ons because I've repeated the test in safe mode with only slight improvement.

I have noticed no improvement in any of the latest updates either.

So chastise the OP for his ignorance and bad manners, but please don't pretend the problem doesn't exist. Smug comments with an "I'm alright Jack" attitude won't further the cause of FF and detract from the usually excellent advice on this site.

So, VanillaMozilla, I DO have a support question, perhaps you knowledgeable gentlemen could advise me how to stop FF 9.01 consuming so much memory? Use IE or chrome instead? Buy a new PC with 1TB of ram? Lets assume the former is being considered but is not a desirable solution, and the latter impossible.

TwistedWitch
 
Posts: 7
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 6:25 am

Post Posted January 4th, 2012, 4:38 pm

I do apologise for the way I steamed in and my rude manner, but I had just had to do a forced restart because FF froze up so badly it stalled my pc and I had some important work that I lost as a result, so I was a little tetchy. I also lacked the time to read all the front page stuff before posting because I was frightened it would freeze up on me again.

So if I ask nicely can someone tell me how I can stop FF keep updating the beta version please, because the one before this current (10.0) was the most stable I had used in a long time, but as FF has overwritten that version I am not sure how to get back to it.

For those of you who didn't get too cross with me and offered advice, thank you, but the time I was complaining about I had ONE window open with three tabs running, so 1.5 gb was more than a little excessive. Also the only add on I have running is my ISP's bandwith monitor, sadly a necessary evil to keep an eye on download limits.

The Poster above has a valid point, whilst I might not have asked in the right manner or of the right people, surely the folks at Mozilla could do something about the excessive memory hogging, and yes I know I am testing a beta. The reason I started testing it was I was truly hoping to find a better version than the one that was giving me so much grief at the time I started testing.

I really don't want to go to another browser, because apart from the memory/freezing issues I much prefer the whole look, style and way FF works.

BTW I am not a he, I am a she! LOL

James
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 27499
Joined: June 18th, 2003, 3:07 pm
Location: Made in Canada

Post Posted January 4th, 2012, 4:49 pm

Firefox itself generally does not a issue with memory usage but rather due to Plugins like Flash and Java being a couple and some extensions.

TwistedWitch wrote:So if I ask nicely can someone tell me how I can stop FF keep updating the beta version please, because the one before this current (10.0) was the most stable I had used in a long time, but as FF has overwritten that version I am not sure how to get back to it.

You probably forgot you were testing a Beta build of Firefox 9.0 or earlier and have been on the Beta channel since. If you want to be on the Release channel again then download and install 9.0.1 from http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/fx/


TwistedWitch wrote:Also the only add on I have running is my ISP's bandwith monitor, sadly a necessary evil to keep an eye on download limits.

What Extension is it, Net Usage Item or DataFox?

cecr
 
Posts: 280
Joined: July 3rd, 2009, 6:10 am

Post Posted January 4th, 2012, 5:51 pm

James wrote:Firefox itself generally does not a issue with memory usage but rather due to Plugins like Flash and Java being a couple and some extensions.


I beg to differ James. FF has ALWAYS had a reputation for memory hogging. I remember defending it to my IT dept where i worked 5 or 6 years ago. " Go to google and do a search for Firefox Memory leak2 he said. I defended it as I describe above - its the saving of tabs and their browsed history that tied up memory I said. I may have been partly right, but FF is not innocent.

In my own tests, done with fresh install, running in safe mode from a clean start and without flash and java, FF simply consumes memory without doing any work - how else can FF tie up several hundred MB over the course of a couple of hours without visiting a single site? I first did that test about V3 or 4, and did it again more recently to test the 'new, faster, more efficient update' was that v6 or 7? There was very little difference.

I've just googled "firefox memory leak" and it came back with "About 1,450,000 results (0.12 seconds)" Undoubtedly, some add-ons are badly designed - its inevitable with so many people with varied skills and priorities creating something to solve their particular pet problem. But lets not forget that Mozilla approves the majority of those add-ons.... so why do they approve add-ons that behave badly? Why have Mozilla only recently emphasised the need for memory efficient add-ons? could it be that the app itself is a bigger problem, and efficient apps would make minimal difference.

In my case, i have to restart at least every hour to avoid a grind to a halt. there have been plenty of times I've had to pull the plug because the system has become so unresponsive a controlled restart of the PC or even of FF was impossible. Naturally I've lost a ton of work like that.

This is what mozilla says: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Memory_Leak

"For most users, Firefox doesn't use an abnormally large amount of memory. For others, however, Firefox's memory consumption is a major problem. This article discusses how to lower Firefox's memory consumption.

Firefox caches objects for future use. In addition, memory becomes fragmented as memory is repeatedly allocated and deallocated.[1] This general increase is normal.

Normal Firefox memory usage reported by Windows might be as high as 100-150 MB. These numbers will vary because Firefox is configured by default to use more memory on systems that have more memory available and less on systems with less. If you experience substantially more usage than this, there may be a problem, or you may just be viewing pages with large amounts of data. "

The 2nd sentence which I've boldened, is an admission from Mozilla that for some users, there IS a problem.

In my case, FF starts up by using about 85MB. Opening one page takes that up to 150-200MB. closing that page doesn't release a single byte of memory... and on it goes. it only takes about 20 tabs to be opened during a session, for about 500MB to be tied up.

So, for at least 2 of us, memory use and the need to frequently restart is a big problem. Maybe some of my addons do leak memory, but not as much as FF does, and I'm using mainstream 9.0.1 from the release channel.

So, does any of you users that are blessed with swelte, athletic FF installations have some ideas about how either of us could join your ranks, or at least move out of the bloated category? The Op might move out of the beta channel as you suggest, and then find it makes no real difference?

LoudNoise
New Member

User avatar
 
Posts: 40048
Joined: October 18th, 2007, 1:45 pm
Location: Next door to the west

Post Posted January 4th, 2012, 6:01 pm

There is likely more then two of you but there a lots of other people who are not having this trouble. In as few words as possible what do you use as an AV and firewall?
Post wrangler
"Choose between the Food Select Feature or other Functions. If no food or function is chosen, Toast is the default."

nwg

User avatar
 
Posts: 251
Joined: June 11th, 2008, 11:20 am

Post Posted January 4th, 2012, 6:03 pm

cecr wrote:The 2nd sentence which I've boldened, is an admission from Mozilla that for some users, there IS a problem.

Mozillazine is not Mozilla, if I may be so bold.

patrickjdempsey

User avatar
 
Posts: 23734
Joined: October 23rd, 2008, 11:43 am
Location: Asheville NC

Post Posted January 4th, 2012, 6:36 pm

cecr wrote:I beg to differ James. FF has ALWAYS had a reputation for memory hogging. I remember defending it to my IT dept where i worked 5 or 6 years ago.


Reputations die hard and whether it's people or software are rarely based on reality but on the rantings of a handful of loud ranters. The Firefox of today is a vastly vastly different animal than Firefox 2.0. Same with IE... it has a decade-old reputation from 6.0 that's very hard to shake even though 9.0 is an enormously better browser.

Five years ago Firefox DID have a bad memory leak problem. And since then people associate Firefox with this problem. So they hunker down and watch the task manager like a hawk... something they wouldn't do for any other program, and start having wild imaginings about what they think is happening behind those numbers. Then they complain about their wild imaginings online using the words memory leak and before long it's the big rage on Google search results.

How can Firefox memory use go up while sitting on a "static" webpage? Simple. The concept of the static webpage is dead. If you don't block ads then any site, no matter how simple with ads is constantly refreshing the ad content for your enjoyment. But that's not the worst of it... here in 2012 many sites aren't static at all... they are DYNAMIC. Facebook is a classic example... there's nothing static on Facebook, anywhere, ever. It's a constantly churning update engine processing millions of actions of your friends and acquaintances and reshuffling and updating content. The same holds true for dozens of sites including any and every webmail, social network, even sites like Huffington Post and YouTube that you don't really think of as "social" sites are far closer to Facebook than they are to a true static webpage.

Just the physical size of the average webpage has grown by 33% in the last year, and that's not including the cumulative effect of continuous updating as I mentioned above. And I didn't pull that percentage out of thin air: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16300000
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/

Return to Firefox Support


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests