Re: Firefox [LWN.net]

Re: Firefox

Posted Jan 26, 2007 7:15 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
In reply to: Re: Firefox by ldo
Parent article: lca2007: Christopher Blizzard

That's impossible! On my 64 bit system running 2.0.0.1 it only takes me about 1/2 day of browsing to hit 900 MB. If I forget to kill & restart Firefox every few hours (thank goodness for session saving), my machine goes into deep swap and I have to either wait 20 minutes for the OOM killer to save me or punch the reset button.

And, once it cruises past 600 MB, Firefox gets unbelievably slow. Click on a tab, wait for 1 second of 100% CPU before it responds, stuff like that. I don't know what's different between your 2.0.0.1 and mine, ldo, but I envy you.

I wonder if it has to do with the types of sites one visits.

to post comments

Re: Firefox

Posted Jan 26, 2007 9:51 UTC (Fri) by ldo (guest, #40946) [Link] (1 responses)

That's impossible! On my 64 bit system running 2.0.0.1 it only takes me about 1/2 day of browsing to hit 900 MB.

Do you have nspluginwrapper installed to enable the Adobe Flash plug-in? When I did, my Firefox would only run for a couple of days at a time before I started incurring major disk thrashing and slowness. Since I removed nspluginwrapper, Firefox has stayed up non-stop. At least 4 weeks, like I said.

Darn--there doesn't seem to be any easy way to get the exact date and time my Firefox process started--all ps is showing is "2006" ...

Re: Firefox

Posted Jan 26, 2007 17:03 UTC (Fri) by roelofs (guest, #2599) [Link]

Darn--there doesn't seem to be any easy way to get the exact date and time my Firefox process started--all ps is showing is "2006" ...

Heh...I had the same problem initially, but I found you can use either -o bsdstart or -o start=WIDE-START-COLUMN to get the day and month, at least.

Greg

P.S. No Flash, no Java here.