firefox 6

Using applications, configuring, problems
Post Reply
Message
Author
jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

firefox 6

#1 Post by jpeps »

I noticed some weird things happening after the update to firefox 6. "pidof firefox-bin" used to be the same pid number listed in "top -n1" for firefox-bin. Now I get two numbers, the second of which matches the ppid of the firefox plugin-container in "top", but shows up for firefox-bin if I run "ps | grep ". The first number I don't see in "top" but again shows up in "ps" .

Anyway, I noticed this because my kill-clean script stopped working, because now it's necessary to kill the second number. Killing the first has no effect. I also noticed that my CPU is getting bogged down (actually, it's hard not to notice.) The plugin container alone takes 13% of resources ( oops...now it's up to 28%). I checked a few times, and suddenly firefox was taking up over 90% of the CPU. The plugin container has a wild life all it's own...god knows what it's doing. FInally, all grinds to a standstill, which only a reboot will restore. Hard to imagine what would happen if a ran a video.

I noticed a few other people are thinking along the same lines:

http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/730341


I can appreciate the time and effort that has been put into making firefox progressively worse with every update, but the combined creative efforts this round have truly exceeded all expectations.

Edit: Disabled plugin through about:config. Hopefully, that should help.

User avatar
xman
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009, 06:31

3.6.20 and 6 are alternative security updates for firefox

#2 Post by xman »

"worse and worse and worse"
So right. 6 is totally quirky-bad. I have to go back and update to 3.6.20: http://www.mozilla.org/security/announc ... 11-30.html.

'safer and safer and safer"
Maybe right. 6 is security update for 4x and 5x: http://www.mozilla.org/security/announc ... 11-29.html.

'lighter and lighter and lighter'
Maybe so but 7 and its add-ons are still under development. 7 uses less memory than 4x, 5x or 6x. NN wrote: http://blog.mozilla.com/nnethercote/201 ... nd-fast-2/.

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#3 Post by jpeps »

Happy to hear that 7 will be faster & lighter. 6 is running way better with the removal of the plugin container. I have no idea what that was all about.

nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#4 Post by nooby »

I only have 3.6.18 or something on one puppy and FF5 on most later puppies and have also noticed that the plugincontainer take up CPU resources.

What is it doing? Does it take care of Flash or Noscript or what?

Thanks Makoto I find such thinking supportable. One only wonder why it takes so much resources at times :)
Last edited by nooby on Fri 19 Aug 2011, 11:15, edited 1 time in total.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

User avatar
Makoto
Posts: 1665
Joined: Fri 04 Sep 2009, 01:30
Location: Out wandering... maybe.

#5 Post by Makoto »

It's been that way since they introduced the plugin-container back in v3 - some systems just don't seem to like it, I guess. Most of my systems seem not to mind it, while I've had to disable it for some (and they're not really any different from the systems that are running it with no problems). :shock:

nooby: The plugin-container is an attempt to have browser plugins run in a separate process from the browser, so, in theory, if a plugin crashes or otherwise goes rogue, it won't bring down the entire browser.
[ Puppy 4.3.1 JP, Frugal install ] * [ XenialPup 7.5, Frugal install ] * [XenialPup 64 7.5, Frugal install] * [ 4GB RAM | 512MB swap ]
In memory of our beloved American Eskimo puppy (1995-2010) and black Lab puppy (1997-2011).

Post Reply