Re: Firefox 6
> :> Just like every single Firefox running on OpenBSD/amd64 > :> > :> On 2011 Sep 07 (Wed) at 23:37:18 +1000 (+1000), Alec Taylor wrote: > :> :Personally I'm using the Nightly builds (version 9). They're great > :> :because they're available in native 64-bit. > :> > : > :tell that to ariane@ *native 64 bit* cough cough. > : > :I bet you are running those on Windoze though. > : > > You are mixing things. > Native 64-buit builds are where the binary is using the 64bit ABI. > > Ariane was talking about using 64-bits of memory. The JIT can only > access 31-bits of contigous memory. > > Two different things. While 64 bits use the 64 bit ABI, it is almost always sold to the public that they can use much more address space and memory. The public ends up with crashes when the underlying OS allocation algorithms tests that assumption.
Re: Firefox 6
Precisely. On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Peter Hessler wrote: > On 2011 Sep 07 (Wed) at 09:35:14 -0500 (-0500), Amit Kulkarni wrote: > :> Just like every single Firefox running on OpenBSD/amd64 > :> > :> On 2011 Sep 07 (Wed) at 23:37:18 +1000 (+1000), Alec Taylor wrote: > :> :Personally I'm using the Nightly builds (version 9). They're great > :> :because they're available in native 64-bit. > :> > : > :tell that to ariane@ *native 64 bit* cough cough. > : > :I bet you are running those on Windoze though. > : > > You are mixing things. > > Native 64-buit builds are where the binary is using the 64bit ABI. > > Ariane was talking about using 64-bits of memory. The JIT can only > access 31-bits of contigous memory. > > Two different things. > > > -- > That boy's about as sharp as a pound of wet liver >-- Foghorn Leghorn
Re: Firefox 6
On 2011 Sep 07 (Wed) at 09:35:14 -0500 (-0500), Amit Kulkarni wrote: :> Just like every single Firefox running on OpenBSD/amd64 :> :> On 2011 Sep 07 (Wed) at 23:37:18 +1000 (+1000), Alec Taylor wrote: :> :Personally I'm using the Nightly builds (version 9). They're great :> :because they're available in native 64-bit. :> : :tell that to ariane@ *native 64 bit* cough cough. : :I bet you are running those on Windoze though. : You are mixing things. Native 64-buit builds are where the binary is using the 64bit ABI. Ariane was talking about using 64-bits of memory. The JIT can only access 31-bits of contigous memory. Two different things. -- That boy's about as sharp as a pound of wet liver -- Foghorn Leghorn
Re: Firefox 6
> Just like every single Firefox running on OpenBSD/amd64 > > On 2011 Sep 07 (Wed) at 23:37:18 +1000 (+1000), Alec Taylor wrote: > :Personally I'm using the Nightly builds (version 9). They're great > :because they're available in native 64-bit. > tell that to ariane@ *native 64 bit* cough cough. I bet you are running those on Windoze though.
Re: Firefox 6
Just like every single Firefox running on OpenBSD/amd64 On 2011 Sep 07 (Wed) at 23:37:18 +1000 (+1000), Alec Taylor wrote: :Personally I'm using the Nightly builds (version 9). They're great :because they're available in native 64-bit. -- "I'm really enjoying not talking to you ... Let's not talk again REAL soon ..."
Re: Firefox 6
Personally I'm using the Nightly builds (version 9). They're great because they're available in native 64-bit. On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Amit Kulkarni wrote: >> Without having an endless crab session about Firefox, I'd like to >> know if Firefox 6 seems any better for you. Firefox 4+ seems to >> not just leak memory, but hemorrhage it. In 5 I routinely hit the >> 2G data limit. FF6 is better in this regard it seems, but freezes >> the system in fits of reallocing memory, freezing OpenBSD for >> seconds at a time. >> >> FF 3.6.xx seemed much better to me. >> >> Are others seeing FF6 as not much better? I see Landry just >> committed 6.0.2 so I'm going to try that, but I don't have a lot of >> hope. > > > try FF7 b4 from his git repo > http://rhaalovely.net/cgit/mozilla-firefox/commit/?h=beta > > FF7 is the first FF release which pays serious attention to those > memory bugs, so it might help you. takes about 2-4 hrs to compile on > amd64.
Re: Firefox 6
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 12:13:21 + Kevin Chadwick wrote: > All the desktops do use noscript though so maybe it's javascript > related? It is the javascript garbage collector that isn't doing its job right. Memory allocated for pages that use javascript and refresh themself, like monitoring or webinterfaces, will just keep growing if one keeps it open. Switching tabs frees some of that memory.
Re: Firefox 6
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 07:40:48 +0200 Landry Breuil wrote: > >> Without having an endless crab session about Firefox, I'd like to > >> know if Firefox 6 seems any better for you. Firefox 4+ seems to > >> not just leak memory, but hemorrhage it. In 5 I routinely hit the > >> 2G data limit. FF6 is better in this regard it seems, but freezes > >> the system in fits of reallocing memory, freezing OpenBSD for > >> seconds at a time. > > Fwiw, i have firefox running since mid-august, and it takes 250mb of > memory. Never hit the 2G limit, be it 4, 5, 6 on amd64 or i386. > > >> FF 3.6.xx seemed much better to me. > > Then just use www/firefox36. I've had 4, 5 and 6 on 5 desktops and had no user complaints so far. Due to reports on this list I monitored memory for a short time once I had a fair few tabs open. After opening and closing them on firefox 5, memory usage stayed around 100Mb and didn't seem to constantly grow. All the desktops do use noscript though so maybe it's javascript related?
Re: Firefox 6
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Amit Kulkarni wrote: >> Without having an endless crab session about Firefox, I'd like to >> know if Firefox 6 seems any better for you. Firefox 4+ seems to >> not just leak memory, but hemorrhage it. In 5 I routinely hit the >> 2G data limit. FF6 is better in this regard it seems, but freezes >> the system in fits of reallocing memory, freezing OpenBSD for >> seconds at a time. Fwiw, i have firefox running since mid-august, and it takes 250mb of memory. Never hit the 2G limit, be it 4, 5, 6 on amd64 or i386. >> FF 3.6.xx seemed much better to me. Then just use www/firefox36. >> Are others seeing FF6 as not much better? I see Landry just >> committed 6.0.2 so I'm going to try that, but I don't have a lot of >> hope. Point releases are security updates... > try FF7 b4 from his git repo > http://rhaalovely.net/cgit/mozilla-firefox/commit/?h=beta Or packages : http://dawn.rhaalovely.net/stuff/amd64/ http://dawn.rhaalovely.net/stuff/i386/ Landry
Re: Firefox 6
switched to xxxterm + adsuck which works every release better and better. Just some IIS pages are not running because of authentication issues which seems related to webkit. So probably chrome has some plugin for that as no issues in chrome at all On 9/7/11, bofh wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda > wrote: >>> FF7 is the first FF release which pays serious attention to those >>> memory bugs, so it might help you. takes about 2-4 hrs to compile on >>> amd64. >> >> 2-4 hrs to build? When it finishes compiling there will be already firefox > 8! > > I used to work with a guy who had access to the netscape source code. > Apparently they don't really understand how to build a project - a > single change *ANYWHERE* would require a complete rebuild. That took > overnight... > > Makefiles are for wimps, apparently. > > > -- > http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk > "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." > -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. > "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or > internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks > factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford > learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30v_g83VHK4
Re: Firefox 6
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda wrote: >> FF7 is the first FF release which pays serious attention to those >> memory bugs, so it might help you. takes about 2-4 hrs to compile on >> amd64. > > 2-4 hrs to build? When it finishes compiling there will be already firefox 8! I used to work with a guy who had access to the netscape source code. Apparently they don't really understand how to build a project - a single change *ANYWHERE* would require a complete rebuild. That took overnight... Makefiles are for wimps, apparently. -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30v_g83VHK4
Re: Firefox 6
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Amit Kulkarni wrote: >> B Without having an endless crab session about Firefox, I'd like to >> know if Firefox 6 seems any better for you. B Firefox 4+ seems to >> not just leak memory, but hemorrhage it. B In 5 I routinely hit the >> 2G data limit. B FF6 is better in this regard it seems, but freezes >> the system in fits of reallocing memory, freezing OpenBSD for >> seconds at a time. >> >> FF 3.6.xx seemed much better to me. >> >> Are others seeing FF6 as not much better? B I see Landry just >> committed 6.0.2 so I'm going to try that, but I don't have a lot of >> hope. > > > try FF7 b4 from his git repo > http://rhaalovely.net/cgit/mozilla-firefox/commit/?h=beta > > FF7 is the first FF release which pays serious attention to those > memory bugs, so it might help you. takes about 2-4 hrs to compile on > amd64. > > 2-4 hrs to build? When it finishes compiling there will be already firefox 8!
Re: Firefox 6
> Without having an endless crab session about Firefox, I'd like to > know if Firefox 6 seems any better for you. Firefox 4+ seems to > not just leak memory, but hemorrhage it. In 5 I routinely hit the > 2G data limit. FF6 is better in this regard it seems, but freezes > the system in fits of reallocing memory, freezing OpenBSD for > seconds at a time. > > FF 3.6.xx seemed much better to me. > > Are others seeing FF6 as not much better? I see Landry just > committed 6.0.2 so I'm going to try that, but I don't have a lot of > hope. try FF7 b4 from his git repo http://rhaalovely.net/cgit/mozilla-firefox/commit/?h=beta FF7 is the first FF release which pays serious attention to those memory bugs, so it might help you. takes about 2-4 hrs to compile on amd64.
Re: Firefox 6
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:56 PM, STeve Andre' wrote: > In 5 I routinely hit the > 2G data limit. FF6 is better in this regard it seems, but freezes > the system in fits of reallocing memory, freezing OpenBSD for > seconds at a time. > Ditto on both counts. FF6 doesn't run out of memory as often as FF5, but these moments where it can't do anything while realloc'ing are nearly as annoying.
Firefox 6
Without having an endless crab session about Firefox, I'd like to know if Firefox 6 seems any better for you. Firefox 4+ seems to not just leak memory, but hemorrhage it. In 5 I routinely hit the 2G data limit. FF6 is better in this regard it seems, but freezes the system in fits of reallocing memory, freezing OpenBSD for seconds at a time. FF 3.6.xx seemed much better to me. Are others seeing FF6 as not much better? I see Landry just committed 6.0.2 so I'm going to try that, but I don't have a lot of hope. --STeve Andre'
