Administrator DKT27 Posted May 11, 2012 Administrator Share Posted May 11, 2012 Thanks to a new patch, memory consumption can be reduced by as much as 400 percent, Mozilla says. It was only a few short months ago that Mozilla put its Firefox browser on a memory “diet,” and this week it announced that it's doing much the same thing for Firefox add-ons as well. “Leaky add-ons are a big problem,” began the blog post on Monday from Mozilla developer Nicholas Nethercote. Accordingly, Nethercote's post outlines a summary of Mozilla's strategy to deal with such problems as well as requesting help from testers of its current Nightly versions. 'Working Splendidly' A promising new patch, in fact, has shown great potential in addressing what Nethercote calls “chrome-to-content” leaks. “In theory it would prevent almost all add-ons' zombie compartments, which constitute the majority of leaks from add-ons,” Nethercote explained. “And in practice, it appears to be working splendidly.” In fact, tests of the new patch so far have found a reduction in memory consumption of as much as 400 percent, Nethercote said. The result--regardless of hardware capabilities--can be much faster browser speeds, he added. “Even on high-end machines with lots of RAM, leaks can greatly hurt browser performance,” Nethercote explained. More details on the new patch can be found in a recent blog post by Kyle Huey, its creator. The Add-On SDK Of course, it's a rare patch that fixes any problem in one fell swoop without any side-effects, and this latest one is no exception. To wit: At least one add-on--Wallflower, to be specific--appears to cause a new problem once the patch is applied. Turns out, however, that the glitch occurs only in add-ons built with older versions of the add-on SDK, Nethercote reported. As a result, Mozilla asks users of the Firefox Nightly builds to file bugs if they see similar problems in any of the add-ons they use. “Firefox 15 is scheduled for release on August 28th,” he concluded. “We need as many affected add-ons to be rebuilt with the latest SDK before that date to minimize potential problems.” :view: View: Original Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowx Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Well it a good new :showoff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazzser Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 How can they reduce something by more than a 100%? :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
implague Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 can u specify the name of the add-on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajeesh Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Firefox 15 alpha is a shit in terms of memory. eats up lots of memory. ff12 uses 1/4th of ff15 memory usage.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karlston Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 How can they reduce something by more than a 100%? :oI wondered about that too, obviously the writer didn't think. Or perhaps Mozilla has some new technology that allows Firefox to use negative memory. The more pages you load, the more free memory your system has. Now if that could be done with money, it would mean the more you spend, the bigger your bank balance gets. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sl@pSh0ck™ Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Firefox 15 alpha is a shit in terms of memory. eats up lots of memory. ff12 uses 1/4th of ff15 memory usage..My Fx15 x64 only uses around 140 megs (1 tab open) and around 190 megs (5 tabs open) and I have a lot of addons installed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajeesh Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Firefox 15 alpha is a shit in terms of memory. eats up lots of memory. ff12 uses 1/4th of ff15 memory usage..My Fx15 x64 only uses around 140 megs (1 tab open) and around 190 megs (5 tabs open) and I have a lot of addons installed. Mine went to around 600mb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sl@pSh0ck™ Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Mine went to around 600mb.Try disabling all your addons, then one by one enable them to see which one is the culprit. I'm pretty sure its one of them :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknownasphyxiated Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 How can they reduce something by more than a 100%? :omaybe it reduce more than their expectation expect 4% only but get 16% reduce do the math... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajeesh Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Mine went to around 600mb.Try disabling all your addons, then one by one enable them to see which one is the culprit. I'm pretty sure its one of them :) removed it.. now using FF12.. best one....max - ~170mb memory usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator DKT27 Posted May 11, 2012 Author Administrator Share Posted May 11, 2012 You guys should read the Mozilla blog post. Here, I'll highlight the part: I seem to be seeing really significant improvements from this. Normally Fx would start at 170MB and by the end of the day that would often be creeping up to 800 or 900 MB. Today using latest nightly I again started at 170, but now at the end of the day I’m only at 230MB! There, 400% improvement. @implague: Firefox had posted a list of ten most memory leaking addons. This fix might help these addons the most. However, the fix is for all the addons leaking memory, not just those ten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioActive Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 There's no "best" when it comes to FF, ALL versions suck, just perhaps not equally I guess. But, ALL versions of FF are memory hogs, nothing ever changed in that area. I still use FF though, out of habit I guess...a bad one I might add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.