Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
Lie Ryan wrote:
On 09/19/10 19:04, Dale wrote:
Yep. I use Seamonkey which is browser and email all in one. It doesn't
use much when I first start it up. The amount it accumulates as time
goes on depends on the websites I go to. If I go to sites that have a
lot of flash, pictures and gifs, then it starts to using a lot more
memory. If I go to say the gentoo forums which is mostly text, it
doesn't change much.
When I'm doing emerge or other things, I usually switches to Epiphany,
dillo, or links; depending on how unbearable things becomes.
If you set the nice value in make.conf then it shouldn't affect
anything else you are doing. I set mine to this:
PORTAGE_NICENESS=5
PORTAGE_IONICE_COMMAND=ionice -c 3 -p \${PID}
That works very well. Note, I think you have to have something compiled
in the kernel for the IONICE part to work.
Just like the example Alan gave, it's not the program itself that is
using the memory, it's what you are doing with it that uses memory. I
have found that the weather radar site and youtube are the biggest
memory hogs.
I'm opening mostly standard HTML pages (gmail, static pages, etc) and
the memory usage is still quite bad.
Do they have ads? Those ads can be any number of things. Even if they
are just gifs, they still add up. Keep in mind, most browsers cache
things until they are closed. If you close your program and the memory
returns to normal when open it again, then that could be the reason.
Also, Linux doesn't manage memory the same way windoze does. The OS
itself caches as much as it can.
This is my Seamonkey with email also open and I have only visited a
couple forums sites:
7493 dale 20 0 253m 133m 28m S 0.7 6.6 1:59.65 seamonkey-bin
Incidentally, I've found that browsing using Thunderbrowse extension in
Thunderbird is much more memory friendly than using Firefox itself
(Thunderbird still uses around 15-20% memory, compared to 20-30% that
Firefox uses). If only Thunderbrowse's interface is not so buggy...
I use Seamonkey for my email so I don't even have Thunderbird installed
here.
Dale
:-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:07 AM, me poiso...@gmail.com wrote: Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from giving it a real try... Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn?hl=en Flashblock: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaignabnl?hl=en Adblock: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom?hl=en The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long time. thx 4 sharing -- @ghosTM55 Mechanism, not policy
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona francesco.talam...@know.eu wrote: On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less stable. I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. Seg fault sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) and re-emerge. Grr. Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes the X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as molasses. Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux. greets FT -- Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17 21:01:33 CEST 2010 Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total aemaeth Well, guess I'm lucky then. I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock, noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but still, I don't see it in a near future. -- Daniel da Veiga
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
Apparently, though unproven, at 07:45 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Lie Ryan did opine thusly: On 09/19/10 09:22, Hilco Wijbenga wrote: On 18 September 2010 15:14, Kevin O'Gorman kogor...@gmail.com wrote: Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less stable. Indeed. But FF4 is *much* faster. And much more stable. At least, that was my experience when I tried it out. I had to go back to 3.6 because some of the plugins that I need were not yet supported for FF4. At least the later 3.6 releases aren't as unstable as the previous ones. Firefox 4 indeed is smoother (probably due to the new animations, probably because none of the plugins I used are compatible yet, but maybe it is just faster); but it is definitely more memory hungrier than before. In Fx3, it usually took around ~20-25% of my 1GB RAM and that's with opening a bunch lot of pages; Fx4 generally takes around ~25-30%. While taking 30% of my RAM is fine when I'm not multitasking, the main problem is I am always multitasking. With Thunderbird taking another 15-20%, emerge ranging from 5-30%, and X about 5-10%, my computer is becoming unbearably slow when memory starved. I've been thinking about adding -Os (optimize-size) to my CFLAGS, does anyone knows if doing that will possibly bring down memory usage and speed up the computer? No it will not. It's the size of the binary code image that is reduced, you may find that the firefox *code* in memory is smaller too. But it will do nothing for the data structures firefox creates to do it's job. Think of it this way: You have a MySQL instance taking up say 20MB in memory. You use it to access a 500G database so it uses a whopping amount of memory for the indexes. You somehow optimize MySQL so that the code is now 19MB. What effect does that have on the 500G database? Answer: none whatsoever. And you conclusions about memory usage are wrong too. When free says you have 1G or RAM (this is true) and top says Thunderbird uses 150M and Firefox 180M, together they do not use 330M. Much of that memory is shared. top tells you amount of memory that this process can access top does not tell you amount of memory that this process owns and that nothing else can access -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
Alan McKinnon wrote: Apparently, though unproven, at 07:45 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Lie Ryan did opine thusly: On 09/19/10 09:22, Hilco Wijbenga wrote: On 18 September 2010 15:14, Kevin O'Gormankogor...@gmail.com wrote: Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less stable. Indeed. But FF4 is *much* faster. And much more stable. At least, that was my experience when I tried it out. I had to go back to 3.6 because some of the plugins that I need were not yet supported for FF4. At least the later 3.6 releases aren't as unstable as the previous ones. Firefox 4 indeed is smoother (probably due to the new animations, probably because none of the plugins I used are compatible yet, but maybe it is just faster); but it is definitely more memory hungrier than before. In Fx3, it usually took around ~20-25% of my 1GB RAM and that's with opening a bunch lot of pages; Fx4 generally takes around ~25-30%. While taking 30% of my RAM is fine when I'm not multitasking, the main problem is I am always multitasking. With Thunderbird taking another 15-20%, emerge ranging from 5-30%, and X about 5-10%, my computer is becoming unbearably slow when memory starved. I've been thinking about adding -Os (optimize-size) to my CFLAGS, does anyone knows if doing that will possibly bring down memory usage and speed up the computer? No it will not. It's the size of the binary code image that is reduced, you may find that the firefox *code* in memory is smaller too. But it will do nothing for the data structures firefox creates to do it's job. Think of it this way: You have a MySQL instance taking up say 20MB in memory. You use it to access a 500G database so it uses a whopping amount of memory for the indexes. You somehow optimize MySQL so that the code is now 19MB. What effect does that have on the 500G database? Answer: none whatsoever. And you conclusions about memory usage are wrong too. When free says you have 1G or RAM (this is true) and top says Thunderbird uses 150M and Firefox 180M, together they do not use 330M. Much of that memory is shared. top tells you amount of memory that this process can access top does not tell you amount of memory that this process owns and that nothing else can access Yep. I use Seamonkey which is browser and email all in one. It doesn't use much when I first start it up. The amount it accumulates as time goes on depends on the websites I go to. If I go to sites that have a lot of flash, pictures and gifs, then it starts to using a lot more memory. If I go to say the gentoo forums which is mostly text, it doesn't change much. Just like the example Alan gave, it's not the program itself that is using the memory, it's what you are doing with it that uses memory. I have found that the weather radar site and youtube are the biggest memory hogs. One is flash and the other is video, both of which need a good bit of memory. Changing the compile flags isn't going to stop you from going to certain sites so it won't help on memory usage. This is my Seamonkey with email also open and I have only visited a couple forums sites: 7493 dale 20 0 253m 133m 28m S 0.7 6.6 1:59.65 seamonkey-bin This is the same after going to the weather radar and one youtube music clip: 7493 dale 20 0 331m 177m 33m S 8.6 8.8 3:18.65 seamonkey-bin If I were to visit other sites, it would go up a lot more. If you want to decrease memory usage, don't go to sites that use flash, have a lot of pics and gifs and other things that use a lot of memory. You could do like I do, if it is using a good bit of memory, just close it, wait a few seconds and open it back up again. Nice clean fresh start and unlike windoze, no reboot needed. ;-) I have Firefox 3.6 on here as well. It does about the same as Seamonkey. Starts out not using a lot but builds up as I visit other sites and things start to load up. I can't tell any difference in speed tho. I don't use it a whole lot tho so I may not have noticed it. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Daniel da Veiga danieldave...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona francesco.talam...@know.eu wrote: On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less stable. I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. Seg fault sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) and re-emerge. Grr. Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes the X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as molasses. Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux. greets FT -- Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17 21:01:33 CEST 2010 Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total aemaeth Well, guess I'm lucky then. I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock, noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but still, I don't see it in a near future. -- Daniel da Veiga Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from giving it a real try... Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn?hl=en Flashblock: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaignabnl?hl=en Adblock: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom?hl=en The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long time. -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:07:11 me wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Daniel da Veiga danieldave...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona francesco.talam...@know.eu wrote: On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less stable. I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. Seg fault sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) and re-emerge. Grr. Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes the X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as molasses. Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux. greets FT -- Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17 21:01:33 CEST 2010 Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total aemaeth Well, guess I'm lucky then. I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock, noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but still, I don't see it in a near future. -- Daniel da Veiga Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from giving it a real try... Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcf n?hl=en Flashblock: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaignabn l?hl=en Adblock: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglido m?hl=en The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long time. Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86. I tried Chrome once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster. I gave up on it because I was not sure if the browser was calling home with my browsing habits and if these were identifiable as coming from my machine/IP address. In other words I wasn't sure to what extent Google was recording my Internet journeys. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On 19 September 2010 19:18, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86. I tried Chrome once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster. I gave up on it because I was not sure if the browser was calling home with my browsing habits and if these were identifiable as coming from my machine/IP address. In other words I wasn't sure to what extent Google was recording my Internet journeys. Opera... :) Somebody can to tell me where is that config file which contains the language preferences? Because I have a new profile and I think the Opera try to communicate with me japan or chinese language. Everywhere are strange symbols... :) -- - - -- Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando) -- http://sayusi.hu -- http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi -- Trust in God and keep your gunpowder dry! - Cromwell
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On 09/19/10 19:26, András Csányi wrote: On 19 September 2010 19:18, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86. I tried Chrome once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster. I gave up on it because I was not sure if the browser was calling home with my browsing habits and if these were identifiable as coming from my machine/IP address. In other words I wasn't sure to what extent Google was recording my Internet journeys. Opera... :) Somebody can to tell me where is that config file which contains the language preferences? Because I have a new profile and I think the Opera try to communicate with me japan or chinese language. Everywhere are strange symbols... :) I think Opera is mutch slower as FF, also i don't like the GUI. Also you can speed up by using Jaegermonkey (http://blog.mozilla.com/dmandelin/2010/02/26/starting-jagermonkey/). But yeahr FF has lost lots of stability. But this is often becoures of problem in addon or flash (most flash), simply that every site got to mutch stuff to put in, also ad becomes flash i so annoyed abot this... What i think it's even worest the use of memory by Firefox. This grow by every release i'm not sure about Chrome, wasn't there some problems with sending data to google? Greeting Alex -- Sourcegarden GmbH HR: B-104357 Steuernummer: 37/167/21214 USt-ID: DE814784953 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Mario Scheliga, Rene Otto Bank: Deutsche Bank, BLZ: 10070024, KTO: 0810929 Schoenhauser Allee 55, 10437 Berlin
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:07:11 me wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Daniel da Veiga danieldave...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona francesco.talam...@know.eu wrote: On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less stable. I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. Seg fault sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) and re-emerge. Grr. Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes the X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as molasses. Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux. greets FT -- Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17 21:01:33 CEST 2010 Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total aemaeth Well, guess I'm lucky then. I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock, noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but still, I don't see it in a near future. -- Daniel da Veiga Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from giving it a real try... Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcf n?hl=en Flashblock: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaignabn l?hl=en Adblock: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglido m?hl=en The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long time. Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86. I tried Chrome once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster. I gave up on it because I was not sure if the browser was calling home with my browsing habits and if these were identifiable as coming from my machine/IP address. In other words I wasn't sure to what extent Google was recording my Internet journeys. -- Regards, Mick I decided to forgo letting myself worry over what google is/isn't getting regarding my internet usage around the time I started using gmail, since I'm practically handing them more through that than any access to my browser history or the like gives. -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:56:36 me wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:07:11 me wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Daniel da Veiga danieldave...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona francesco.talam...@know.eu wrote: On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less stable. I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. Seg fault sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) and re-emerge. Grr. Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes the X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as molasses. Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux. greets FT -- Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17 21:01:33 CEST 2010 Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total aemaeth Well, guess I'm lucky then. I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock, noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but still, I don't see it in a near future. -- Daniel da Veiga Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from giving it a real try... Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpk kcf n?hl=en Flashblock: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaign abn l?hl=en Adblock: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbigl ido m?hl=en The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long time. Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86. I tried Chrome once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster. I gave up on it because I was not sure if the browser was calling home with my browsing habits and if these were identifiable as coming from my machine/IP address. In other words I wasn't sure to what extent Google was recording my Internet journeys. -- Regards, Mick I decided to forgo letting myself worry over what google is/isn't getting regarding my internet usage around the time I started using gmail, since I'm practically handing them more through that than any access to my browser history or the like gives. I use gmail too, but for sensitive information of commercial or private nature I use encryption and for very sensitive information I do not use gmail. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:26:56 András Csányi wrote: On 19 September 2010 19:18, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86. I tried Chrome once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster. I gave up on it because I was not sure if the browser was calling home with my browsing habits and if these were identifiable as coming from my machine/IP address. In other words I wasn't sure to what extent Google was recording my Internet journeys. Opera... :) Somebody can to tell me where is that config file which contains the language preferences? Because I have a new profile and I think the Opera try to communicate with me japan or chinese language. Everywhere are strange symbols... :) Hmm, it should have inherited your default language setting. Try Tools/General - at the bottom there is a drop down option to change the language. Alternatively, type opera:config and go down to User Prefs on the page that opens. Then scroll down to find Language File, Language Files Directory, etc. My Language Files Directory points to /usr/share/opera/locale/en-GB/ HTH -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
