After an hour of waiting for "quit" to finish, I gave up and killed it. | From: self_same_self@yahoo.com | What kind of plugins do you have? Nothing much. No flash, for example. The scariest is IcedTea (Java). I don't know how to tell if Java is actually being run. The real culprit is likely javascript -- not a plugin. | How many tabs and windows? Lots. 28 windows. It isn't convenient to count the tabs (I'd have to visit each of the windows and count the tabs). --- GTALUG Talk Mailing List - talk@gtalug.org http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 05:29:07PM -0500, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote

After an hour of waiting for "quit" to finish, I gave up and killed it.

| From: self_same_self@yahoo.com

| What kind of plugins do you have?

Nothing much. No flash, for example.

The scariest is IcedTea (Java). I don't know how to tell if Java is actually being run.

The real culprit is likely javascript -- not a plugin.

| How many tabs and windows?

Lots. 28 windows. It isn't convenient to count the tabs (I'd have to visit each of the windows and count the tabs).

A few items... * As others have pointed out, the Java plugin is a major security hole, a cross-platform equivalant of Active-X. Remove, or disable the plugin. * As I pointed out on June 22nd, I've gone hog wild with creating separate profiles for websites I often visit. Here's a snippet from my ~/.icewm/menu file that sets up part of the launchbar... menu WEBsets firefox { prog DSLR firefox /usr/bin/firefox -new-instance -P dslreports prog GLICE firefox /usr/bin/firefox -new-instance -P glice prog GCL firefox /usr/bin/firefox -new-instance -P gcl prog GRAPHS firefox /usr/bin/firefox -new-instance -P graphs prog HFBOARDS firefox /usr/bin/firefox -new-instance -P hfboards prog SLASHSOY firefox /usr/bin/firefox -new-instance -P slashsoy prog SNOW firefox /usr/bin/firefox -new-instance -P snow prog STREAMS firefox /usr/bin/firefox -new-instance -P streams prog WXFORUM firefox /usr/bin/firefox -new-instance -P wxforum prog WXSHORT firefox /usr/bin/firefox -new-instance -P wxshort prog WXLONG firefox /usr/bin/firefox -new-instance -P wxlong prog WUWT firefox /usr/bin/firefox -new-instance -P wuwt prog YOUTUBE firefox /usr/bin/firefox -new-instance -P youtube } If you run "top" in a really wide term (e.g. 120 or 130 columns), you can see breakdowns for which instance is using how much resources. This can help you determine which websites are the problem. *IMPORTANT* This will only work if the command lines differ from each other. Specifying a profile name is sufficient. Here's the drill... 1) Set up a wide term, at least 120, if not 130 columns wide 2) Run "top -c" in the term. Alternately, you can run "top" and then tap the "c" key to toggle *FULL* commandline display on/off. 3) Tap the "o" key (lowercase "owe") for case-insensitive filtering. Uppercase "O" selects case-sensitive filtering. 4) You'll be prompted like so add filter #1 (ignoring case) as: [!]FLD?VAL 5) Type in the following line exactly and press {ENTER} COMMAND=firefox This will match any line containing the substring "firefox" as part of the commandline. Note that if you prefix it with "!", the filter will show every line *NOT* containg "firefox" in the commandline. i.e. !COMMAND=firefox You'll get something resembling the output in my attachment, which is rather wide. Then you can see which instance is using how much resources. -- Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 01:33:30PM -0500, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote

| From: Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

(Nice hack to run multiple browser instances.)

| * As others have pointed out, the Java plugin is a major security hole, | a cross-platform equivalant of Active-X. Remove, or disable the | plugin.

No, it isn't like Active-X. Totally different security model.

Active-X: total trust in signed plug-ins

Java: sandbox the application so that it isn't able to do unauthorized things. Unfortunately, the attack surface is large enough that there were likely and have been implementation failures.

I understand the differences "under the hood", but conceptually, at an abstract level, it's the same. A diesel-engined car has a different powersource than a gasoline-engined car or an electric car. But in the end, they accomplish the same task, i.e. moving a few people and some groceries around. And they're all capable of getting into accidents. Same thing with Java and Active-X, they involve downloading code from a webpage and executing it on your machine. And they're all capable of security breaches. Yes, they're different "under the hood", but the results are often the same. -- Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

On 16/11/14 05:29 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:

| How many tabs and windows?

Lots. 28 windows. It isn't convenient to count the tabs (I'd have to visit each of the windows and count the tabs).

Firefox has tab groups btw, so you can organize lots of tabs without having to open multiple windows: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tab-groups-organize-tabs I have no idea if a single window with tab groups versus multiple windows has any effect on memory/performance though... my guess would be probably not... But, I figure it's worth a mention since I've found tab groups to be more convenient than dealing with multiple windows (e.g. you can name them, search for a tab, easily move tabs between groups, etc.). I restart Firefox/IceWeasel periodically when I noticed the memory usage is getting high. At the very least, it reduces the memory footprint because it doesn't reload tabs on reboot until you first focus on them (at least, that's the way I have my settings configured), so a reboot still saves your tabs but won't consume any resources for the tabs you're not actually using.

Most of the times, I just have high cpu usage when visiting pages running flash. That´s when I can start listening my fan and cpu working. :p Also, which version of firefox are you running? =================================================== Marcelo Cavalcante Rocha - Kalib Pós-Graduando em Governança de Tecnologia da Informação - ESTÁCIO/FIC Graduado em Sistemas de Informações - ESTÁCIO/FIC Usuário Linux #407564 | Usuário Asterisk #1148 Fortaleza - Ceará - Brazil Celular: +55 085 87620983 Certificações: ITIL V3 <http://www.itil-officialsite.com/Qualifications/ITILV3QualificationLevels/ITILV3FoundationQualificationinITServiceManagement.aspx> | CSM <http://www.scrumalliance.org/> | LPI-C1 <http://www.lpi.org/> | LPI-C2 <http://www.lpi.org/> | LPI-C3 <http://www.lpi.org/> | Novell CLA <http://www.novell.com/training/certinfo/cla/> Minha Pessoa: Blog <http://www.marcelocavalcante.net> Projetos: Tux-CE <http://www.tux-ce.org> | Archlinux-br <http://www.archlinux-br.org> | Chakra <http://www.chakra-project.org/> | KDE Brasil <http://br.kde.org> | TLUG <http://gtalug.org/wiki/Main_Page> | PUG-CE <http://pug-ce.python.org.br/blog/> =================================================== Proteja meu endereço como estou protegendo o seu. Não revele e-mail dos correspondentes: use Cco (Copia Carbonada Oculta). Retire os endereços antes de reenviar. Dificulte assim a disseminação de vírus e spam. 2014-11-16 17:32 GMT-03:00 <self_same_self@yahoo.com>:

What kind of plugins do you have? How many tabs and windows?

*From:* D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh@mimosa.com> *Sent:* ‎Sunday‎, ‎November‎ ‎16‎, ‎2014 ‎3‎:‎20‎ ‎PM *To:* GTALUG Talk <talk@gtalug.org>

My desktop has been up for a week. I have a lot of firefox windows and many more tabs open. FF was getting sluggish.

It has taken 4k minutes of CPU. Not seconds. So that is about 10 hours of CPU per day.

Even quiting is taking a long time. About 10 minutes so far. At 99% of the CPU. Yuck. Maybe I'll kill it.

It is taking 8G of virtual memory and 4.5 G resident (according to top).

--- GTALUG Talk Mailing List - talk@gtalug.org http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

--- GTALUG Talk Mailing List - talk@gtalug.org http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

On 17 November 2014 11:03, David Thornton <northdot9@gmail.com> wrote:

Browser != OS.

_even_ Chrome gets confused from time to time.

I don't think it's too much to ask to just "reboot" your browser.

But it's also not too much to ask to hope for the browser to not be *too* dramatically memory leaky. And It sure seems like the browsers have gotten memory leaky, even without resorting to Flash and Java. It looks to me like Javascript, which is pretty well mandatory these days what with all the "web applications" using AJAX and such, can chew great gobs of memory without hardly trying. -- When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"

On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 12:02 -0500, David Thornton wrote:

I dunno, I am not too quick to jump on blaming the browser as "memory leaky". I am willing to bet some sites are not built with your memory in mind. Consider sites that just load and load javascript objects ad nauseum. Should the browser say : "ok that's enough web site, no more java script objects for you" ? and if it's a reasonable X for a single site ... and you have 300 sites open .. is 300X ok for your computer?

I start to doubt that it even has to do with the "headline" site. Ad-supported sites will be obliged to serve up whatever their advertisers decide to serve. I can imagine a lot of room for badly-designed javascript, videos and Ajax there. Mel.

| From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com> | But it's also not too much to ask to hope for the browser to not be | *too* dramatically memory leaky. | | And It sure seems like the browsers have gotten memory leaky, even | without resorting to Flash and Java. It looks to me like Javascript, which | is pretty well mandatory these days what with all the "web applications" | using AJAX and such, can chew great gobs of memory without hardly | trying. Right. I would like each "compartment" to be isolated and instrumented. This would give me the tools I need to kill the piggy tab, not the whole browser. It would give me the tool to decide whether to visit a site in future or not. What's a compartment? Naively, I'd say a tab. But maybe there is some kind of session concept for a site or set of federated sites that needs to be accounted for. Being a dumb user, I immediately jump to solutions before getting to the problem stage. The problem: The browser is piggy. More focused: some sites make heavy demands. I need tools to limit their dammage, or at least limit the dammage I have to inflict on myself to recover from that site's dammage. I've whined about this before. Perhaps I'm being thick-headed not accept earlier suggestions but they haven't appealed to me. Walter just suggested running a whole bunch of different browsers, creating the compartmentalization that I'm asking for. The the technique he uses is sane but surely Firefox can do better. --- GTALUG Talk Mailing List - talk@gtalug.org http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

| From: Clifford Ilkay <clifford_ilkay@dinamis.com> | On 11/17/2014 01:27 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote: | > I would like each "compartment" to be isolated and instrumented. | You just described Google Chrome. That's interesting. I originally thought so too, but others said that it didn't work out that way. (This was years ago.) Can you really use this to figure out which tab is eating CPU? Bonus: eating memory?

On 11/17/2014 15:47, Christopher Browne wrote:

See URL chrome://memory-redirect

I think memory consumption is more interesting than CPU consumption, myself...

The Firefox equivalent for this is about:memory. You can also tell Firefox to run the garbage collector from that page. -- staticsafe https://staticsafe.ca

On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Clifford Ilkay wrote:

On 11/17/2014 01:27 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:

...

| From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com>

| But it's also not too much to ask to hope for the browser to not be | *too* dramatically memory leaky. | | And It sure seems like the browsers have gotten memory leaky, even | without resorting to Flash and Java. It looks to me like Javascript, which | is pretty well mandatory these days what with all the "web applications" | using AJAX and such, can chew great gobs of memory without hardly | trying.

Right.

I would like each "compartment" to be isolated and instrumented.

You just described Google Chrome.

Google Chrome slows down my machine *much* more than Firefox. -- Chris F.A. Johnson, <http://cfajohnson.com>