Firefox - More fire and fewer cancer warnings than California

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Firefox - More fire and fewer cancer warnings than California

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

when it does it, look at the address bar, there's be an icon next to the https padlock that'll let you change that.

# ¿ May 28, 2019 13:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 04:55

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

Mr.Radar posted:

Firefox is moving to a 4-week release cycle (from the current 6-8 week cycle) starting with Firefox 71.

I remember that they already did that long ago and then walked it back when it turned out that the devs were burning out and that security, QA and users were also suffering. If they are lucky, they can learn from their mistakes twice.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2019 20:29

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

I have no idea what Mozilla has done but since 70.0.1, FF manages to eat 12 GB of RAM to display about:blank.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2019 19:12

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

The bet thing is that the internal task manager gives me relatively normal numbers for extensions and pages, there's just a huge chunk of memory that's just eaten, elsewhere.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2019 19:24

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

It tells me perfectly sensible numbers, also about 12 GB short of the actual memory footprint. More than that, the growing to that point takes time, so restarting FF somewhat often will stop the growth, how often is somewhat often isn't too clear yet. I hope once a day is enough.

Probably just some ugly memory leak somewhere, I'm sure glad they switched to a faster release cycle.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2019 19:48

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

It seems to have resolved itself, I'm not sure how, all I did was restart it twice and it's got perfectly normal RAM usage now, even after several hours to gorge itself like I do, shamefully, on cookie dough, at midnight, in front of the fridge.

Well, I'm not complaining, for now.

# ¿ Nov 6, 2019 01:58

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

D. Ebdrup posted:

I have Firefox 69.0.2 (and will probably upgrade both the base system and all my packages later today), but I noticed just when I got up that top was claiming pretty unreasonable memory loads for a bunch of Firefox processes:

code:

last pid: 67321;  load averages:  1.51,  1.01,  0.49                                           up 14+15:21:07  08:04:33
356 threads:   1 running, 354 sleeping, 1 zombie
CPU: 21.3% user,  0.0% nice,  8.8% system,  0.2% interrupt, 69.8% idle
Mem: 878M Active, 2735M Inact, 190M Laundry, 11G Wired, 221M Buf, 957M Free
ARC: 7621M Total, 4292M MFU, 2576M MRU, 32K Anon, 84M Header, 669M Other
     6109M Compressed, 11G Uncompressed, 1.86:1 Ratio
Swap: 18G Total, 18G Free

  PID   JID    UID      PRI NICE   SIZE    RES STATE    C   TIME    WCPU COMMAND
60664     0   1001       20    0    21G   407M select   1   9:15   0.24% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -c
60664     0   1001       20    0    21G   407M uwait    2   0:20   0.04% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -c
60664     0   1001       20    0    21G   407M uwait    0   0:05   0.01% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -c
60664     0   1001       20    0    21G   407M kqread   1   0:45   0.01% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -c
74590     0   1001       20    0  2936M   630M select   0  52:49   1.92% firefox{firefox}
74590     0   1001       20    0  2936M   630M kqread   3  14:00   1.26% firefox{Gecko_IOThread}
74590     0   1001       20    0  2936M   630M select   3   9:48   0.66% firefox{GLXVsyncThread}
74590     0   1001       20    0  2936M   630M uwait    2   3:18   0.39% firefox{VsyncIOThread}
74590     0   1001       20    0  2936M   630M uwait    2   4:43   0.34% firefox{IPDL Background}
74590     0   1001       20    0  2936M   630M select   2   0:08   0.03% firefox{DOM Worker}
74590     0   1001       20    0  2936M   630M uwait    3   0:35   0.01% firefox{Timer}
74590     0   1001       20    0  2936M   630M uwait    3   0:02   0.00% firefox{JS Watchdog}
57888     0   1001       22    0  2808M   514M select   1  48:07   3.86% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -c
57888     0   1001       20    0  2808M   514M kqread   3  11:26   1.93% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -c
24615     0   1001       21    0  2781M   504M select   3   4:23   2.92% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -c
24615     0   1001       20    0  2781M   504M kqread   3   0:19   1.44% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -c
24615     0   1001       20    0  2781M   504M uwait    1   0:02   0.00% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -c
63018     0   1001       23    0  2700M   461M CPU3     3   0:18   6.90% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -c
63018     0   1001       21    0  2700M   461M kqread   0   0:02   2.67% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -c
63018     0   1001       20    0  2700M   461M uwait    0   0:00   0.01% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -c
63018     0   1001       20    0  2700M   461M uwait    2   0:00   0.00% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -c
65768     0   1001       33    0   553M   326M uwait    3  94:36  21.72% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -p
65768     0   1001       31    0   553M   326M uwait    2 127:30  17.82% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -p
65768     0   1001       23    0   553M   326M uwait    2   9:47   5.91% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -p
65768     0   1001       23    0   553M   326M uwait    0   9:39   5.88% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -p
65768     0   1001       23    0   553M   326M uwait    3   9:42   5.83% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -p
65768     0   1001       23    0   553M   326M uwait    1   9:39   5.68% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -p
65768     0   1001       21    0   553M   326M kqread   0  13:32   3.70% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -p
65768     0   1001       21    0   553M   326M uwait    3  12:31   2.87% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -p
65768     0   1001       20    0   553M   326M uwait    0   5:02   0.28% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -p
65768     0   1001       20    0   553M   326M uwait    2   0:46   0.17% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -p
65768     0   1001       20    0   553M   326M select   3   3:03   0.04% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -p
65768     0   1001       20    0   553M   326M uwait    1   0:03   0.01% /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -p

However, things are not as dire as they may seem, because it's the RES column that indicates how much of the memory is part of the resident set, ie. what's actually in use in the VM itself.
Also, despite the fact that there's a lot of processes, all the ones that have the same number are sharing the resident set, so they aren't taking up any more memory.

I guess my point with this is to ask whether you're sure you were looking at the resident set or not?

It was definitely real memory use enough that the OS wouldn't claw it back in my case. It kinda sucked but FF has stopped doing it without giving me a single hint as to what was going on and without changing anything.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2019 16:54

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

D. Ebdrup posted:

I'm fairly certain it was fixed by this pull request for jemalloc since that's a fix for a critical virtual memory leak on Windows platforms according to the changelog.
Obviously it hasn't hit FreeBSD directly, but Jason Evans (the creator, and a FreeBSD commiter) found that jemalloc 5.2.1 breaks compilations on non-llvm hardware platforms in the FreeBSD tree.

All that being said, the Javascript Baseline Interpreter makes a noticable difference on javascript-heavy websites, so it's definitely a good update!

No, when I say I didn't change anything, I mean I didn't change anything, and FF didn't update, I restarted it, it started bloating fast, so I restarted it, same tabs and all, and then it didn't bloat and remained perfectly kind and civilized. I'm mystified. I didn't even do that profile thing you have to do when having a zoom level starts making FF blow chunks, I just closed and restarted.

# ¿ Nov 14, 2019 03:25

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

The people who could make that decision are the people who are getting money from the situation being as it is.

# ¿ Apr 14, 2020 17:36

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

Im_Special posted:

Tomorrow's (err.. today) is the big "forced Megabar" day, who else excited for the shitstorm that's going to happen on reddit?

I'm sure plenty of designers are ready to explain how their design is infinitely superior to what their users want.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2020 15:24

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

Sometimes tabs in firefox 87 decide that they aren't going to do poo poo for a while, no response to address + enter in the address bar, no keyboard shortcuts, nothing, just idle for a minute or so. Very irritating, I'm going to be a prick and say it's a UI decision instead of some new bug.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2021 22:15

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

A while back some brain genius at mozilla decided people didn't need to have a context menu option to "view image" anymore, because I suppose changing the UI is how they justify their job, and I installed some extension that brought it back, and not long ago it stopped working so I installed another but it puts the view image option in the bottom section and not at the top of the context menu where it belongs, and I'd really like to bring back view image without having to learn a new skill, if I have to learn a new skill I'll be very annoyed, but I'll still do it.

# ¿ Jul 26, 2023 23:45

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

Convenience. I have uses for both options, they have removed one option but I still have uses for both options.

# ¿ Jul 27, 2023 00:21

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

Does it move its entry to the top of the context menu though, that's what I'm trying to get.

# ¿ Jul 27, 2023 19:12

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

In the end all I have is appreciation for the elegance of this method for harvesting pain and misery, making a lot of people's lives just a tiny bit more poo poo, one tiny move at a time.

# ¿ Jul 27, 2023 19:40

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

Nalin posted:

Just a quick PSA, if you use the NordVPN extension on Firefox, you may want to delete it for now. An update was pushed out that causes every single background tab to load and can lock up your browser on startup with 100% CPU and runaway memory usage.

That sounds awful in general for people with severe tab collection disease, like me, who just keep a running stack of articles to read through in a few separate windows, any way to prevent that behaviour?

# ¿ Apr 17, 2024 23:49

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

Nalin posted:

No. It is a bug with the extension. It was introduced in version 3.10.1.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/nordvpn-proxy-extension/versions/

Watch that page to see if they update it. The extension keeps getting more and more 1 star reviews and they keep saying it will be fixed but it's been a week now....

Oh, that's excellent to know, thanks.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 00:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 04:55

SIGSEGV: Nov 4, 2010

It's me, I have more tabs open (but not loaded) than I have days of life expectancy.

# ¿ May 3, 2024 23:38

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Firefox - More fire and fewer cancer warnings than California