Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-08-15 Thread Chris Peterson
I see what you mean. The chart is abstract, but I see how the relative sizes do imply more than intended. I like your suggestion to use up and down arrows. chris On 2017-08-14 7:42 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: Chris, Do you know who controls this blog post?

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-08-14 Thread Ben Kelly
Chris, Do you know who controls this blog post? https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-64-default-64-bit-windows/ The chart is really misleading. What does the vertical bar chart for "security" even mean? As noted on twitter: https://twitter.com/kylealden/status/897222041476005888 The bar

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-08-08 Thread Chris Peterson
On 2017-08-07 1:19 AM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: I think the 2GB "requirement" from Microsoft should be ignored, because plenty of our users are ignoring it. By "ignore the 2GB requirement", are you suggesting we do or don't give 64-bit Firefox to users with less than 2GB? I am waffling

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-08-07 Thread Ryan VanderMeulen
On 8/7/2017 3:51 AM, Chris Peterson wrote: Do we test 32-bit Firefox on Win32 or Win64 today? Our Win32 tests run on 32-bit Windows 7 instances. I don't know offhand if we're using the /3GB switch or not. -Ryan ___ dev-platform mailing list

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-08-07 Thread Nicholas Nethercote
I think the 2GB "requirement" from Microsoft should be ignored, because plenty of our users are ignoring it. Nick On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: > On 2017-08-06 11:26 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Chris

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-08-07 Thread Chris Peterson
On 2017-08-06 11:26 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Chris Peterson wrote: Users with only 2 GB and 5 minute browser sessions would probably have a faster user experience with 32-bit Firefox than with 64-bit, but how do we weigh that experience

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-08-07 Thread Henri Sivonen
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Chris Peterson wrote: > Users with only 2 GB and 5 minute browser sessions would probably have a > faster user experience with 32-bit Firefox than with 64-bit, but how do we > weigh that experience versus the security benefits of ASLR? Not

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-07-20 Thread Jean-Yves Avenard
Hi On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > What's the plan for eligible people that still want to keep 32-bit > Firefox? Are they going to have to stop auto upgrades, which would get > them automatically on 64-bits and upgrade manually? This is especially > going

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-07-20 Thread Chris Peterson
On 2017-07-19 6:58 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: I don't understand why that would be, but if so it should show in crashstats as fewer small OOMs on these devices. Does the data actually show that? I don't know. Can that be filtered? I'm not sure I'm answering the right question, but searching

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-07-19 Thread Mike Hommey
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:40:12PM -0400, Ben Kelly wrote: > On Jul 19, 2017 8:57 PM, "Mike Hommey" wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 08:48:45PM -0400, Ben Kelly wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2017 6:20 PM, "Mike Hommey" wrote: > > > > > What would be the rationale

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-07-19 Thread Ben Kelly
On Jul 19, 2017 8:57 PM, "Mike Hommey" wrote: On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 08:48:45PM -0400, Ben Kelly wrote: > On Jul 19, 2017 6:20 PM, "Mike Hommey" wrote: > > > What would be the rationale behind this choice? > > Smaller memory footprint, which, you'll admit,

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-07-19 Thread Mike Hommey
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 08:48:45PM -0400, Ben Kelly wrote: > On Jul 19, 2017 6:20 PM, "Mike Hommey" wrote: > > > What would be the rationale behind this choice? > > Smaller memory footprint, which, you'll admit, when you're on a machine > with (less than) 2GB RAM, makes a

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-07-19 Thread Ben Kelly
On Jul 19, 2017 6:20 PM, "Mike Hommey" wrote: > What would be the rationale behind this choice? Smaller memory footprint, which, you'll admit, when you're on a machine with (less than) 2GB RAM, makes a difference. I thought we had data that showed OOM (small) due to VM

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-07-19 Thread Mike Hommey
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:01:04AM +0200, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote: > Hi > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > What's the plan for eligible people that still want to keep 32-bit > > Firefox? Are they going to have to stop auto upgrades, which would get > >

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-07-19 Thread Chris Peterson
On 2017-07-19 10:18 AM, Mike Hoye wrote: On 2017-07-19 3:58 AM, Chris Peterson wrote: On 2017-07-19 12:01 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: What's the plan for eligible people that still want to keep 32-bit Firefox? Outside of our QA team (or others orgs, I guess?) do we have a set of use cases that

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-07-19 Thread Mike Hoye
On 2017-07-19 3:58 AM, Chris Peterson wrote: On 2017-07-19 12:01 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: What's the plan for eligible people that still want to keep 32-bit Firefox? Outside of our QA team (or others orgs, I guess?) do we have a set of use cases that would motivate people to flip that switch?

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-07-19 Thread Chris Peterson
On 2017-07-19 12:01 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: What's the plan for eligible people that still want to keep 32-bit Firefox? Are they going to have to stop auto upgrades, which would get them automatically on 64-bits and upgrade manually? This is especially going to be a problem for users with less

Re: 64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-07-19 Thread Mike Hommey
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:38:56PM -0700, Chris Peterson wrote: > We are on track to make 64-bit Firefox the default build for Win64 OS, > bringing improved ASLR and fewer OOM crashes to the 70% of Windows Firefox > users running Win64. > > PLANS: > > * In Firefox 55 (August 8), the Windows stub

64-bit Firefox progress report: 2017-07-18

2017-07-19 Thread Chris Peterson
We are on track to make 64-bit Firefox the default build for Win64 OS, bringing improved ASLR and fewer OOM crashes to the 70% of Windows Firefox users running Win64. PLANS: * In Firefox 55 (August 8), the Windows stub installer will default to 64-bit Firefox for eligible users (Win64 and 2+