MozillaZine

Major Problem with Firefox

User Help for Mozilla Firefox
James
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 27734
Joined: June 18th, 2003, 3:07 pm
Location: Made in Canada

Post Posted April 1st, 2018, 2:16 pm

The word Addons started to get used around Firefox 2.0 or 3.0 days as it was fine with them being their separate things before and easier to do support. The Addons or Add-ons word just groups together Extensions, Plugins, Themes (complete and image), search engines, dictionaries and language packs.

https://addons.mozilla.org/faq

dmcmillen
 
Posts: 34
Joined: March 10th, 2006, 12:26 pm
Location: Hattiesburg, MS

Post Posted April 3rd, 2018, 5:50 pm

Ok, just happened again. Note that the information I am providing here was based on observing the Resource Monitor and with absolutely no activity in FF (In other words I never did anything with FF; just let it set there open.

There were 8 FF processes and 8 tabs. Before opening the majority of tabs, the used memory was running between 4.7 and 5.1gb. The largest firefox.exe process grew from .9gb to 4.7gb and used memory from 5gb to 10gb in about 30 mins. At this point I killed the tabs one at a time, observing the effect on memory. After killing all the tabs except a Google tab, there was NO effect on FF memory usage. At that point I killed FF and it took several minutes before all the firefox.exe processes were stopped.

Please note that killing all the tabs had NO effect on FF memory usage. Now it could be that I didn't wait long enough, but I thought a couple of minutes would be sufficient.

I have pictures of the Resource Monitor but I don't see a way to post any pics here.

Here are the tabs I had open:
https://www.google.com/

https://www.salon.com/2018/04/02/trumps ... -accounts/

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=3039405&p=14797224#p14797224

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/thre ... ak.648074/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 21f237b403

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-water ... ref=scroll

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ers-217711

https://www.salon.com/2018/04/02/is-tru ... y_partner/

LIMPET235
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 39314
Joined: October 19th, 2007, 1:53 am
Location: The South Coast of N.S.W. Oz.

Post Posted April 4th, 2018, 2:35 am

To post an image here, see this page...
> http://kb.mozillazine.org/Posting_a_scr ... _the_forum

After you've taken the screen shot/s...
Reduce it/them to around 600 x 500 or so in your favourite image editor, (Be sure to remove any personal info.)
& upload them to your favourite image hosting site.
> http://tinypic.com/ (If you use TinyPic, select "Message Board" from the "Resize" drop down.)
> https://imgur.com/
> https://imgbox.com/
> http://www.imagebam.com/
> http://postimages.org/

&...Select the code listed as "Forum Thumbnail", copy the code and paste it in
the thread where you reported your problem.
Ancient Amateur Astronomer
Win-7-HP/Intel® DualCore-2.0GHz/500G HDD/4 Gig Ram/550Watt PSU/350WattUPS/Firefox-20.0-62.0-70.0/T-bird-2.0.0.24/SnagIt-v10.0.1/MWP-7.12.
W.M.Y.C.
(Always choose the "Custom" Install.)

Eldkatten
 
Posts: 12
Joined: April 2nd, 2018, 12:31 pm

Post Posted April 4th, 2018, 5:55 am

Hello,

I just wanted to add that this:
dmcmillen wrote:(...) After killing all the tabs except a Google tab, there was NO effect on FF memory usage. At that point I killed FF and it took several minutes before all the firefox.exe processes were stopped.(...)

is the behaviour I also observe. See the thread I opened on the "memory" issue (viewtopic.php?f=38&t=3039679 "(too) many Firefox process and too much memory used").

Since I found two more threads in "Support" addressing this kind of problem ("Cant disable multi-process", viewtopic.php?f=38&t=3039691, and "59.0.2 Memory hog at 1gig with one tab open", viewtopic.php?f=38&t=3039607) might it be that this is not so much a topic of individual "support" but rather gradually a full grown "bug"?

Kind regards

DanRaisch
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 123886
Joined: September 23rd, 2004, 8:57 pm
Location: Somewhere on the right coast

Post Posted April 4th, 2018, 5:58 am

that this is not so much a topic of individual "support" but rather gradually a full grown "bug"?


Not seeing anything of the sort here so it may be premature to consider three reports grounds to consider this the identification of a bug. Have the usual diagnostic steps been tested to see if profile issues are at fault here?
If no improvement using Safe Mode, do you have the same problem if you create a new profile and test it with no extensions or non-default themes installed?
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_Manager
and
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Creating_a_ne ... on_Windows

Eldkatten
 
Posts: 12
Joined: April 2nd, 2018, 12:31 pm

Post Posted April 4th, 2018, 6:42 am

Hello DanRaisch,

there are four reports of this kind, including this one. I don't want to fight, so if the developers don't see a bug, so be it.
On the other hand, even if the described behaviour - which looks very similar to me on all four cases - is triggered in fact by some odd settings or plugins or themes or any peculiarities, I would still consider it a bug inside the program that shows the behaviour, in this case Firefox. That is because I don't find it acceptable that a programm is so easily transformed into a runaway train only by NOT having some settings in a certain way.
If it were my development - and I speak out of experiance as a software developer - , I would at least have a deeper look into what exactly causes this behaviour and maybe find a way to catch that, even if the program is not run within certain narrow limits of circumstances.

And as a user, I find it quite annoying not to have a certain solution, but to be expected to try this, and that, and maybe that as well. Frankly speaking, before I spend days and weeks on observing memory issues with Firefox, only to find out "Oh, THAT setting didn't do the trick either.", I'd rather go through the painfull process of finding a different browser.

I apologize for posting abit offtopic, and no offence intened.
Kind regards

mightyglydd

User avatar
 
Posts: 9908
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 7:07 pm
Location: Hollywood Ca.

Post Posted April 4th, 2018, 7:55 am

:roll: You've been given a likely solution..TRY A NEW PROFILE Add nothing.
It takes five minutes max and the old profile remains.
PS, With those sites open for an hour, around 800mb.
#KeepFightingMichael and Alex.

Eldkatten
 
Posts: 12
Joined: April 2nd, 2018, 12:31 pm

Post Posted April 4th, 2018, 8:14 am

Dear mightyglydd,

again, I don't want to fight, not even Michael...

But, please, the advice you gave - in all-capitals, which I just ignore - is not a solution. It's a way to find out whether the described behaviour has "anything" to do with "something" in the profile. If this works, and I do try a new - which means empty - profile, what have I won, even with the old profile, which I spend quite some time for to configure it the way I want, still being there? "Try a new profile" plays in the same league as "Reinstall windows", it does nothing the solve the actual problem.

Oh, and I just notice your "rolling eyes"... so I do take the all-capitals personal. Please refrain from addressing me in such a rude way, thank you.

Kevin McFarlane
 
Posts: 582
Joined: November 10th, 2009, 3:47 am

Post Posted April 4th, 2018, 8:21 am

Eldkatten wrote:And as a user, I find it quite annoying not to have a certain solution, but to be expected to try this, and that, and maybe that as well. Frankly speaking, before I spend days and weeks on observing memory issues with Firefox, only to find out "Oh, THAT setting didn't do the trick either."


I agree it's annoying but is often necessary if the developers and others cannot easily reproduce the reported behaviour. But if creating a new profile gets you working, and you happen to prefer Firefox to other browsers, then why not try that? Seems preferable to switching to another browser that you may not prefer. On the other hand, if switching is not a big deal then fine.

mightyglydd

User avatar
 
Posts: 9908
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 7:07 pm
Location: Hollywood Ca.

Post Posted April 4th, 2018, 8:30 am

Eldkatten wrote:Please refrain from addressing me in such a rude way, thank you.

Oh dear... :roll:
When YOU come to a HELP SITE and folks give you FREE advice (and as I did, actually bother to test the links you gave !) it's bloody rude not to respond.
This isn't a debating society, no one cares about your bizarre theories....
#KeepFightingMichael and Alex.

dmcmillen
 
Posts: 34
Joined: March 10th, 2006, 12:26 pm
Location: Hattiesburg, MS

Post Posted April 4th, 2018, 8:40 am

Here's the Resource Manager just before killing tabs one at a time.
Image

Here's the Resource Manager several minutes after killing all the tabs. Note that there was some small drop.
Image

We can quibble over the definition of a "bug", but whether it's cause is a direct bug in the ff software or its cause is ff behavior due to a configuration or interaction issue, either way it's a ff "bug" What I hear is that Mozilla cannot yet find a cause for what is currently only 4 reports of what seems to be related behavior. So they don't even have an idea of where to start to look in the code until they get more detailed information from users that can establish cause and effect. However, for me as one of those 4 users, I have already been sucked into hours of testing and I am beginning to agree with Eldkatten that I might be better served by looking for a new browser. I have been a FF user from the very beginning and I love the sync function which helps me coordinate work between my desktop and my laptop. This behavior has affected how I can do my work. I have to be constantly watching memory usage while I'm opening and working with FF.

My gut feeling is that this has the feel of a problem arising after major changes were made to the core engine. Perhaps not enough testing or not enough focused testing for a long enough period. Just my gut feeling. Also, as I monitored this last runaway, as I added additional tabs, there was what I would characterize as normal memory usage, until I added a tab, not particularly different from the others that seemed to trigger the runaway behavior. I'd say that Mozilla better get a handle on this pretty quick. Software reputations can turn on a dime if a problem suddenly starts to proliferate. Only 4 reported problems now.... I'm hoping that Mozilla will try to reproduce this problem in a similar environment as mine (64 win 7) with the info I have provided.

Now I do not use profiles. I have used the default profile forever. If I understand how profiles work, if I create a new profle, I will not see see all my bookmarks, etc. in the new profile and that is how I work. I need access to all the information that is in the profile I use. If it works differently let me know.

mightyglydd

User avatar
 
Posts: 9908
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 7:07 pm
Location: Hollywood Ca.

Post Posted April 4th, 2018, 8:48 am

TRY A NEW PROFILE Add nothing.
](*,) Dan gave you the links.. READ THEM...and this https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/pr ... x-profiles
#KeepFightingMichael and Alex.

Kevin McFarlane
 
Posts: 582
Joined: November 10th, 2009, 3:47 am

Post Posted April 4th, 2018, 9:07 am

I agree that there is a bug somewhere, i.e., some combination is causing unintended behaviour. All we can do is suggest things to try to narrow the problem down. For example, if we were able to narrow it down to "Extension X plus Windows 7 plus Firefox 59" exhibits this behaviour but we don't see it in Firefox 58 then at least that gives info so that the developers of Firefox and/or the extension can dig deeper.

As for testing it is simply impossible with software as complex as web browsers and operating systems to test all possible combinations of things that a user might try. Not to mention conflicts with external software. There will always be problems.

mightyglydd

User avatar
 
Posts: 9908
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 7:07 pm
Location: Hollywood Ca.

Post Posted April 4th, 2018, 9:38 am

You were given the Proper Solution by a MODERATOR..

DanRaisch wrote:Not seeing anything of the sort here so it may be premature to consider three reports grounds to consider this the identification of a bug. Have the usual diagnostic steps been tested to see if profile issues are at fault here?
If no improvement using Safe Mode, do you have the same problem if you create a new profile and test it with no extensions or non-default themes installed?
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_Manager
and
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Creating_a_ne ... on_Windows

Don't like the service here, go to the official Mozilla site and see how they like your BS..both of you.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/
#KeepFightingMichael and Alex.

Eldkatten
 
Posts: 12
Joined: April 2nd, 2018, 12:31 pm

Post Posted April 4th, 2018, 9:44 am

Hello,

back to the problem... Firefox is running all day now - from 8am to now, 6:30pm - both idle and in use without the feared memory issue. What I did since yesterday, when the prblem was still present, was to disable Adblock Plus and Flash Video Downloader, leaving only NoScript active. Otherwise no plugins active.
So it seems to have to do with plugins, at least in my case. Maybe I try to activate Flash Video Downloader again, Adblock Plus I think I can live without.

And I do appreciate the help I get here, I just didn't like to be lectored and patronized. That article from the KnowledgeBase - "Reducing memory usage - Firefox" - did yield some effect, though not as far as that the memory usage was civilized again after only those measures.

Have a nice evening (or whatever time of the day it is where you are)

P.S.:
mightyglydd wrote:(...) go (..) both of you.

Last time I checked I was only one :lol: The cat who lives here doesn't count, she isn't into browsers 8-[
Last edited by Eldkatten on April 4th, 2018, 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Return to Firefox Support


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests