Another FF Memory Leak Thread

[DasFox]

I'm sure the folks at Mozilla are doing a fine job, but I've been complaining about this issue for several years now and the developers just don't seem to want to step forward and address the issue and admit Firefox has memory leak problems.

It's time someone step forward from the Development and admit that there is an issue and try to fix this.

Ok now, don't think I'm yelling, bitching, or throwing a fit, I'm fine, calm and relaxed, I would just like to see this issue resolved once and for all, that is all, nothing more, so please don't take offense, none is intended.

I've been jumping back and forth with Firefox since the 2.0x versions came out with this problem, so we're talking going back several years, yet I see no end in sight.

Here's Firefox open with just three tabs open and not on any sites with anything intensive going on, in the way of flash or java in the slightest, yet the memory on Firefox is at 246MB of ram just for three tabs:



I'm sorry but this much memory is just unacceptable for 3 tabs on a browser. Because if I open up more then of course the memory shoots up and the other day my son had 6 tabs open and the memory was running just over 400MB and I gasped when I saw this...

My System Specs:

Firefox 3.5.4
XP Pro SP2
P4 2.26GHZ
1GB Ram
Addons: (Noscript, Downthemall, Skype)

The ONLY two programs running in the background on the system is VirtualCloneDrive and Avira Free Antivirus, I have the system tweaked and optimized so at bootup I'm only running at 160MB of ram.

Here's msconfig with Startup programs:



Noscript was not being used at the time of this problem either...

[teoli2003]

Start by removing the Skype add-ons. It is a usual culprit. Which amont of memory does this three same sites show after removing it?

[dfoulkes]

Here's Firefox open with just three tabs open and not on any sites with anything intensive going on, in the way of flash or java in the slightest, yet the memory on Firefox is at 246MB of ram just for three tabs:

Was your FF running for days to get to that 246mb or did it climb to that level right-off?

FYI
Right now I have 41 addons enabled with a non-default theme and with three tabs open (no flash/movies type stuff) my Task mgr. reports 104mb of use. I would think that your total number should be much smaller if you only have the 3 addons running...when I've had say... 20 tabs open at once with some Flash type stuff FF may climb up to 170mb and when I close all tabs and FF clears out some stuff (can take a little while) Task mgr. will go down to about 130mb or so.

As teoli2003 stated that addon has caused tons of problems for users.

Also ... another FYI...
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Problematic_extensions

[James]

Were you viewing sites that used Plugins like Flash or Java before hand though. Also Skype (and even DownThemAll) is known to create problems. Also how long was running up to that point. Also Firefox Addons (Extensions, Themes) are not the same sort of risk like the IE addons.

Also http://kb.mozillazine.org/Reducing_memo ... Firefox%29

Also Firefox 2.0 came out about third week of October 2006 so it was not for several years in that sense.

[DasFox]

At that point in time, nothing was being used, just surfing several sites is all...

The surfing hadn't been very long, 20-30 mins. tops...

Actually I might of had a few more tabs open, around 6-8, when I think about it, so that is my bad. But then when I closed them all down and only had three, the ram was running this high.

Also on all the sites, they were just computer sites, like AnandTech, EVGA, GURU3D, etc., nothing flash or java intensive at all.

I also wasn't doing anything with DownThemAll or Skype...

All I do know for a fact is, I've been using FF since the project started back at the 0.x versions and when 2,0x came on the scene memory leaks have been common and it's still persisting.

Also over all the years I've used FF since the beginning 99.9% of all my surfing has been with no addons, only one a few occassions have I used noscript or downthemall, so for me, having seen this issue for this many years, I know FF just has issues with ram usage...

Most of what I have seen, tends to be with flash intensive sites, causing issues with FF...

[DanRaisch]

It's not necessary for Skype to be in use for it to cause problems. Have you tried disabling that extension or temporarily uninstalling it?

[DasFox]

I'll disabled all the extensions and will report back when I see this problem occur again...

[James]

Most of what I have seen, tends to be with flash intensive sites, causing issues with FF...

Well the Flash plugin is one of the major culprits with Firefox memory usage...

[schapel]

I'm sure the folks at Mozilla are doing a fine job, but I've been complaining about this issue for several years now and the developers just don't seem to want to step forward and address the issue and admit Firefox has memory leak problems.

They do admit it has memory leak problems. That's why they've developed tools to detect and report memory leaks, and have fixed so many memory leak bugs and optimized memory usage so much that Firefox uses less memory than other browsers.

If you want to demonstrate a problem with how much Firefox uses, first start with a clean Firefox profile. Then, perform exactly the same actions in Firefox 3.5.x and some other modern and popular browser, such as IE 8, Safari 4, Chrome 3, or Opera 10. If you can get Firefox to use significantly more memory than another browser, and others can reproduce the problem, I will gladly file a bug report because I would like to see the problem fixed.

[Geek4AllSeasons]

I've invested a lot of time/effort on FF memory usage supporting my extension addition . At the moment, 87 installed, 10 disabled and 3 queued up for restart. FEBE extension it possible impulsive acquisition and rational extension management to coexist.

I'm also a performance freak with Process Explorer and/or Task Manager running all the time, open a lot. Occasionally, I need a hit from Process Monitor (tracing tool). If I'm feeling really wild I crank-up WinDbg (ugh) or another debugger in my stable.

It's interesting. Memory usage I observe is similar to the numbers above. A big windows memory usage measurement gotcha is dll hooking A.K.A code injection. Any installed application, security, anti-malware, shell extension dll can register (hook itself) for loading when any/EVERY process is created.

There have been huge improvements in FF memory usage overtime. Especially in the last few major releases. Moz KB/Wiki/Memory Leak thread have useful information. A couple of three months ago I found a new extension AFOM that's made a BIG difference.

Apologies for not including a link for your browsing pleasure. This forum visit was supposed to be to figure out why Select/Copy/Cut/Paste and DragNDrop is broken.

Since installing AFOM, with rare exception, memory usage tends to be more stable/rational. Working set is consistently and for the most part substantially lower then VM Size/private bytes. FF is being a better neighbor, consuming less physical memory.

When tabs/windows are closed and/or cache is zapped, memory is released. It important to recognize how much memory web pages require. Graphics and JavaScripts can push per page allocations into the 3 MB to 5 MB range. If you have 15 to 20 tabs open .... yata, yata, yata.

IMO the real problem (cause it's solvable ..theoretically) is not knowing who's doing what to whom. I've spent hours doing searches, hacking debuggers and/or tracing tools. I've gone as far as extracting strings from memory segments to find clues pointing to the guilty.

The Leak Monitor extension has a narrow scope. It highlights a class of leaks resulting from creative coding practices. Buried within the la-breath of pages/links referenced above there is mention of a detailed memory profiling/tracing tool. If I remember correctly it requires the application of a patch to FF source and use of data reduction tools.

Just the thought of it makes me salivate. Building FF from source hasn't make it to my A list. Yet, but does have a rising bullet. I hate not knowing "why". Rational management/use of extensions should include evaluating utility versus resource usage.

Not everyone has a new Duo/quad processor with 4GB of RAM and a SATA 300 disk (maybe even 3/4 disk RAID10 hanging off a PCIx motherboard ... Zounds!! Dual 1GBs network adapters and dual 1 GB video adapters, quad 2560x1600 fp would round things out.)

Resources are cheap and getting cheaper. Viewing them as free is not a good thing. They are always finite. The need for functional scalability and system stability is a universal constant.

Firefox may have an image problem. If not yet, soon. But, it's the good kind. Brought about by success and phenomenal functional growth. The challenge is managing complexity. IMO if the developers took the time to fix every memory leak that exists now in a year or two leaks would be back in force.

I can offer 2 ideas that might help. The first is a summary memory usage/extension profile reporting facility and allow users to opted-in. Problem extensions/combinations should pop out quickly without the use exotic analytical methods. More subtitle patterns could be identified using factor/causal (or other) analysis techniques.

The SWAI (sophisticated wildaxx idea) is divide and conquer. Appropriate functional separation could simplify resource management while increasing performance stability.

Subjective observations indicate problems, complications and/or side-effects are inversely correlated with core functionality. Weave profile syncing extension is an example.

Memory usage appears to be consistently higher if weave is running throughout a session. AFOM seems to have more difficult reclaiming memory if it is disconnected late in the session. Memory usage varies in a lower range if it is disconnected early session.

As I understand Firefox's current architecture it is first and foremost a web browser i.e. optimized for graphical presentation of hyper-linked content. The functional scope of extensions goes well beyond.

Cooperating co-processes could be optimized for functional/resource management , provide stability/complexity firewalls (ha ha) and exploit a range of options to minimize communication overhead.

Geesh, I just woke-up to the time. I've been thinking about offering my two cents for a while. Now I can cross it off the list. "

david