On 02/17 09:55, R0b0t1 wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:11 PM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > R0b0t1 wrote:
> >> Hello List,
> >>
> >> This isn't normal. Is it due to the new process model? I think I read
> >> that now they emulate chrome, which possibly means both browsers are
> >> unsuitable for use. Firefox will require its threads be OOM killed if
> >> not closely monitored.
> >>
> >> If it can be fixed - can anyone explain?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> R0b0t1
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Have you checked to see what in Firefox is using that memory?
> > about:memory Then click on Verbose and then Measure. In the past, I
> > have found websites that are just awful at loading everything Firefox
> > has and usually for no good reason. It's one reason I use adblock, with
> > some custom blocking not related to ads, and script blocking tools as
> > well. I can give those memory hungry things a toss in the trash before
> > they even load.
> >
> > Maybe that will help. Of course, it could be just Firefox being
> > Firefox. I have seen mine use 2GBs in the past but never that much. :/
> >
> > Hope that leads to a clue.
> >
>
> It's a good tip, but the report seems to be a bit optimistic. Firefox
> claims there are 5 processes using ~500MB each, yet if I close Firefox
> 10G is suddenly free. Regardless of whether or not Firefox thinks it
> is using the memory, the kernel thinks it is, because OOM killer
> triggers.
>
> It may or may not be related to certain webpages, I can't especially tell.
>
> Cheers,
> R0b0t1
>
Hi,
try 'uBlock origin' and 'uMatrix' for a more specific block. You can
even block certain elements of a webpage by simply clicking on
them. Dont use uBlock (that one without the 'origin' in its name),
since as far as I know it is no longer developed.
Both do a good job for keeping your data yours, too.
HTH!
Cheers
Meino
