<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Firefox 3 is Still a Memory Hog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/</link>
	<description>Connecting Ideas</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:14:23 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-RC1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Squall Leonhart</title>
		<link>http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-311320</link>
		<dc:creator>Squall Leonhart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:43:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-311320</guid>
		<description>VM is not paged memory.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>VM is not paged memory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-311319</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:41:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-311319</guid>
		<description>I understand what you saying but what I'm seeing doesn't fit that scenario.  With FreeRamPro (FRP) running I'm sitting at less than 200M for 23 tabs.   Three straight times I've quit FRP and immediately FF3 has start to climb in memory used.  And in each case the paged memory (VM size in Task Manager) has been 2.3 to 3x the size of the RAM used.

As I type this the mem used is sitting at 245M after closing FRP.  I restart it and FF3 drops back and is now at 150M.  And it stays somewhat consistent varying only by 20M or so up and down.  Might just be a quirk with my system but that's what I'm seeing.  Maybe someone can see the relationship (IF there is one) and figure out a consistent fix for everyone.

Ken</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I understand what you saying but what I&#8217;m seeing doesn&#8217;t fit that scenario.  With FreeRamPro (FRP) running I&#8217;m sitting at less than 200M for 23 tabs.   Three straight times I&#8217;ve quit FRP and immediately FF3 has start to climb in memory used.  And in each case the paged memory (VM size in Task Manager) has been 2.3 to 3x the size of the RAM used.</p>
<p>As I type this the mem used is sitting at 245M after closing FRP.  I restart it and FF3 drops back and is now at 150M.  And it stays somewhat consistent varying only by 20M or so up and down.  Might just be a quirk with my system but that&#8217;s what I&#8217;m seeing.  Maybe someone can see the relationship (IF there is one) and figure out a consistent fix for everyone.</p>
<p>Ken</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Squall Leonhart</title>
		<link>http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-311305</link>
		<dc:creator>Squall Leonhart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:02:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-311305</guid>
		<description>Memory freeing apps are useless on XP, all they do is flush all the loaded dll's into the paged memory and slow explorer down.

As for firefox,  the paged memory should only exceed the private memory if privatememory runs low.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Memory freeing apps are useless on XP, all they do is flush all the loaded dll&#8217;s into the paged memory and slow explorer down.</p>
<p>As for firefox,  the paged memory should only exceed the private memory if privatememory runs low.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-311245</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:27:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-311245</guid>
		<description>Not sure if this will help anyone but I did an increases in my pagefile and now my memory usage has gone down considerably.  I ran one instance of FF3 with 23 tabs open about half of which have "active content" like streaming stock quotes, weather map updates, etc.  I actually reach a peak memory usage (according to Task Manager) of 1.7G (in a 2G system)!

I increased my pagefile size (i just added the 2nd Gig a week ago) to 3069M with a max of 4500M.  With the same number of tabs open to the same pages (though the content may be more or less active) my current mem usage is 154K and my VM size (which I wasn't tracking before is 365M.

My processor usage by FF3 is lower as well though I can actually quantify the difference.

I also added FreeRamPro (a free download from download.net).  Not sure if it has helped but it certainly hasn't hurt.

Ken</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not sure if this will help anyone but I did an increases in my pagefile and now my memory usage has gone down considerably.  I ran one instance of FF3 with 23 tabs open about half of which have &#8220;active content&#8221; like streaming stock quotes, weather map updates, etc.  I actually reach a peak memory usage (according to Task Manager) of 1.7G (in a 2G system)!</p>
<p>I increased my pagefile size (i just added the 2nd Gig a week ago) to 3069M with a max of 4500M.  With the same number of tabs open to the same pages (though the content may be more or less active) my current mem usage is 154K and my VM size (which I wasn&#8217;t tracking before is 365M.</p>
<p>My processor usage by FF3 is lower as well though I can actually quantify the difference.</p>
<p>I also added FreeRamPro (a free download from download.net).  Not sure if it has helped but it certainly hasn&#8217;t hurt.</p>
<p>Ken</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FF3 is a memory hog</title>
		<link>http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-310177</link>
		<dc:creator>FF3 is a memory hog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:52:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-310177</guid>
		<description>1.1 GB for a fucking document viewer!?

Yes, I searched for "firefox memory hog" and yes, it's true.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1.1 GB for a fucking document viewer!?</p>
<p>Yes, I searched for &#8220;firefox memory hog&#8221; and yes, it&#8217;s true.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lee</title>
		<link>http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-309614</link>
		<dc:creator>Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:03:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-309614</guid>
		<description>This memory problem most certainly does exist. I had the same problem in FF2 and, having just now upgraded to FF3, am seeing the same problem as before. I am sitting at 462,320 KB of usage right now and it's climbing as I type. I've only had the browser open for about an hour. I do not have these memory problems at all in IE, Opera or Chrome (Google's new browser). It's something in FF.

In the amount of time it took me to type that, I am now at 467,124 KB. And I type fast. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This memory problem most certainly does exist. I had the same problem in FF2 and, having just now upgraded to FF3, am seeing the same problem as before. I am sitting at 462,320 KB of usage right now and it&#8217;s climbing as I type. I&#8217;ve only had the browser open for about an hour. I do not have these memory problems at all in IE, Opera or Chrome (Google&#8217;s new browser). It&#8217;s something in FF.</p>
<p>In the amount of time it took me to type that, I am now at 467,124 KB. And I type fast. <img src='http://neosmart.net/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Firefox 3 Memory Hog</title>
		<link>http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-306932</link>
		<dc:creator>Firefox 3 Memory Hog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:15:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-306932</guid>
		<description>I've been running at or around 240mb to 300mb on a WinXP machine with 2 gigs of ram. I run two browser windows on a large lcd with only a single tab in each. It starts off ok and stays around 100mb but after a while it just gets out of control. Restarting only works for a short time. I wish this issue was given more attention as I honestly will have to look at going with another browser if nothing changes. I'm sure a nice new quadcore with 5 gigs of ram would help, but then thats not the point of using FF in the first place.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been running at or around 240mb to 300mb on a WinXP machine with 2 gigs of ram. I run two browser windows on a large lcd with only a single tab in each. It starts off ok and stays around 100mb but after a while it just gets out of control. Restarting only works for a short time. I wish this issue was given more attention as I honestly will have to look at going with another browser if nothing changes. I&#8217;m sure a nice new quadcore with 5 gigs of ram would help, but then thats not the point of using FF in the first place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: totalz</title>
		<link>http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-305356</link>
		<dc:creator>totalz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:20:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-305356</guid>
		<description>Not to mention its stupidity on not using the cached jpg, page source etc etc...

ie. save image -&#62; download again.
    view source (some websites) -&#62; make duplicate request and resend unnecessary information, which could really screw up if you're buying stuff online!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not to mention its stupidity on not using the cached jpg, page source etc etc&#8230;</p>
<p>ie. save image -&gt; download again.<br />
    view source (some websites) -&gt; make duplicate request and resend unnecessary information, which could really screw up if you&#8217;re buying stuff online!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Squall Leonhart</title>
		<link>http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-299349</link>
		<dc:creator>Squall Leonhart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:26:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-299349</guid>
		<description>https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=464648</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=464648" rel="nofollow">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=464648</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Squall Leonhart</title>
		<link>http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-299083</link>
		<dc:creator>Squall Leonhart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:57:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-299083</guid>
		<description>That update is months old, and has no bearing on the problem at hand.

a GDI memory leak can be easily destinquished in the GDI objects columb in task manager</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That update is months old, and has no bearing on the problem at hand.</p>
<p>a GDI memory leak can be easily destinquished in the GDI objects columb in task manager</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J23</title>
		<link>http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-298122</link>
		<dc:creator>J23</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:04:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-298122</guid>
		<description>I downloaded and installed a Windows XP update that fixes a GDI memory leak:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9b5edfc8-a4bb-4080-9063-6518166e2dab&#38;displayLang=en

and after that, FF3 memory has been very stable. I've been running this about 3 or 4 days now, and FF3 memory use is OK.  So maybe that will fix the problem.  I would like to hear feedback from others.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I downloaded and installed a Windows XP update that fixes a GDI memory leak:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9b5edfc8-a4bb-4080-9063-6518166e2dab&amp;displayLang=en" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9b5edfc8-a4bb-4080-9063-6518166e2dab&amp;displayLang=en</a></p>
<p>and after that, FF3 memory has been very stable. I&#8217;ve been running this about 3 or 4 days now, and FF3 memory use is OK.  So maybe that will fix the problem.  I would like to hear feedback from others.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Squall Leonhart</title>
		<link>http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-297386</link>
		<dc:creator>Squall Leonhart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:35:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-297386</guid>
		<description>David, I'm not 'that' technical however i will try to clarify what im seeing.

i created a second test profile just for this lol.

Fresh start with bfcache disabled, is 49MB's at this point.

Ok, using 10 sites opening them twice each.

forums.ngemu.com, redcl0ud.1.forumer.com, onemanga.com, forum.pj64-emu.com, www.jabosoft.com, forum.nhancer.com/, www.msghelp.net/, www.ngohq.com, community.mybboard.net and mail.live.com

thats about 77MB's used.

right click a tab and click close others

this dials down to 72MB's.

Open the same tabs again, takes us up to 89MB's

Closing them again takes us down to 84MB's

Opening those same Tabs again takes us to 96MB, and closing them takes us down to 90MB.


Ok, at this point, im at 90MB, im going to open the same tabs 4 times each, so thats 40 open tabs.

Theres 125MB's. closing them takes us back to 103.

Now this was a controlled example, obviously we aren't going to be loading the same sites 4 times each, and data and images differening in each tabs is going to hit on memory usage much more.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David, I&#8217;m not &#8216;that&#8217; technical however i will try to clarify what im seeing.</p>
<p>i created a second test profile just for this lol.</p>
<p>Fresh start with bfcache disabled, is 49MB&#8217;s at this point.</p>
<p>Ok, using 10 sites opening them twice each.</p>
<p>forums.ngemu.com, redcl0ud.1.forumer.com, onemanga.com, forum.pj64-emu.com, <a href="http://www.jabosoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.jabosoft.com</a>, forum.nhancer.com/, <a href="http://www.msghelp.net/" rel="nofollow">http://www.msghelp.net/</a>, <a href="http://www.ngohq.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ngohq.com</a>, community.mybboard.net and mail.live.com</p>
<p>thats about 77MB&#8217;s used.</p>
<p>right click a tab and click close others</p>
<p>this dials down to 72MB&#8217;s.</p>
<p>Open the same tabs again, takes us up to 89MB&#8217;s</p>
<p>Closing them again takes us down to 84MB&#8217;s</p>
<p>Opening those same Tabs again takes us to 96MB, and closing them takes us down to 90MB.</p>
<p>Ok, at this point, im at 90MB, im going to open the same tabs 4 times each, so thats 40 open tabs.</p>
<p>Theres 125MB&#8217;s. closing them takes us back to 103.</p>
<p>Now this was a controlled example, obviously we aren&#8217;t going to be loading the same sites 4 times each, and data and images differening in each tabs is going to hit on memory usage much more.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Baron</title>
		<link>http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-297373</link>
		<dc:creator>David Baron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:05:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-297373</guid>
		<description>@Squall Leonhart: Are you saying you're seeing memory increases from peak to peak, or from trough to trough?  What I mean by this is the following:

Start with one tab open (call this low number L1)
Open ten tabs (and call this higher number H1)
close the ten tabs (call this L2)
open ten tabs again (call this H2)
etc.

Measuring memory usage from L1 to L2 to L3, etc., is going to tell you how good the implementation of malloc and free is at returning memory to the system, how fragmented the allocations end up, etc.  It's not clear if this graph is very meaningful to what users experience.

Measuring memory usage from H1 to H2 to H3, etc., is much more likely to yield useful information, and I think is more likely to reflect whether those users who aren't looking at task manager are actually perceiving memory use problems.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Squall Leonhart: Are you saying you&#8217;re seeing memory increases from peak to peak, or from trough to trough?  What I mean by this is the following:</p>
<p>Start with one tab open (call this low number L1)<br />
Open ten tabs (and call this higher number H1)<br />
close the ten tabs (call this L2)<br />
open ten tabs again (call this H2)<br />
etc.</p>
<p>Measuring memory usage from L1 to L2 to L3, etc., is going to tell you how good the implementation of malloc and free is at returning memory to the system, how fragmented the allocations end up, etc.  It&#8217;s not clear if this graph is very meaningful to what users experience.</p>
<p>Measuring memory usage from H1 to H2 to H3, etc., is much more likely to yield useful information, and I think is more likely to reflect whether those users who aren&#8217;t looking at task manager are actually perceiving memory use problems.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Squall Leonhart</title>
		<link>http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-297372</link>
		<dc:creator>Squall Leonhart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:03:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-297372</guid>
		<description>No problem Steve, I've been using 3.0 since beta 2, and its happened from then all the way till now with the 3.1 nightlies,

I've loaded a session using session manager extension and saved them all as bookmarks, so i could use it in the fresh profile

Clean profile fresh start w BFcache disabled, is 51MB's. 
Load all the tabs at once(44), takes me up to 236MB's

Close all tabs except for 1, memory usage dials back to 170MB, again.

Having used firefox 2.0 heavily previously, 50 or so tabs would use 240ish MB's, and with BFCache set to 1 would dial back to 125MB's, Opening a few tabs with a google search in them then closing them would at this point dial memory back to 90MB's.

My own theory on it is that the memory used by images in a tab is not being released as it is more noticeable when sites with many images, or large hi res images are closed. I'm going to raise the issue at mozillazine and get some good reprosteps down, i'll also build a places.sql file which has sites which agravate the problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No problem Steve, I&#8217;ve been using 3.0 since beta 2, and its happened from then all the way till now with the 3.1 nightlies,</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve loaded a session using session manager extension and saved them all as bookmarks, so i could use it in the fresh profile</p>
<p>Clean profile fresh start w BFcache disabled, is 51MB&#8217;s.<br />
Load all the tabs at once(44), takes me up to 236MB&#8217;s</p>
<p>Close all tabs except for 1, memory usage dials back to 170MB, again.</p>
<p>Having used firefox 2.0 heavily previously, 50 or so tabs would use 240ish MB&#8217;s, and with BFCache set to 1 would dial back to 125MB&#8217;s, Opening a few tabs with a google search in them then closing them would at this point dial memory back to 90MB&#8217;s.</p>
<p>My own theory on it is that the memory used by images in a tab is not being released as it is more noticeable when sites with many images, or large hi res images are closed. I&#8217;m going to raise the issue at mozillazine and get some good reprosteps down, i&#8217;ll also build a places.sql file which has sites which agravate the problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-297365</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:51:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/firefox-3-is-still-a-memory-hog/#comment-297365</guid>
		<description>Sorry...that should read 125Mb of course (and 116Mb)...sigh...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry&#8230;that should read 125Mb of course (and 116Mb)&#8230;sigh&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
