Description of problem: After the latest upgrade to 91.1.0 (ESR) Firefox is noticably slower and eating memory as crazy. I was up to 6,5GB after one day of usage. The tabs open are exactly the same as with the previous version as I have my "standard" tabs so something is very wrong. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 91.1.0 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.Upgrade Firefox 2.Use as normally 3.Watch memory footprint rise. Will try to downgrade now to verify that this was the problem.
Thank you for the report. I dont see the problem here, on 64 bit plasma, i7, nvidia-current. I have hundreds of tabs (i have not cleaned for a while...) Switching between a number of them, memory goes to 2 gig + 230 k shared. After idling on this bugzilla page a minute, it is back to 600 + 230 k, 1% CPU.
CC: (none) => friEver confirmed: 1 => 0Status: NEW => UNCONFIRMED
I do not have that many tabs, perhaps 20-30 concurrent and I do have an older slower laptop, also Nvidia, but after downgrading to 78.13.0esr all is well again. So the problem is definitely in the "upgraded" firefox. It is still really consuming too much RAM compared to other browsers, but the total stays under 4 GB. And it is very much more agile. Something stinks badly in the 91 version ;-)
Hm. And you do not have a plugin that may behave badly with new version of Firefox? (Just a shot in the dark) I now sent a ping on the QA mail list for this bug.
After at least a day since last restarting firefox, with 13 tabs always open and many other tabs opened and closed during that time, htop is showing 4710M virtual, 614M resident, and 255M shared. This is on a 16GB ram system. $ free -m total used free shared buff/cache available Mem: 16020 4441 1501 238 10077 11009 Swap: 32761 2 32759 The firefox memory usage is not showing any indication of memory leaks with about:plugins showing two plugins OpenH264 Video Codec provided by Cisco Systems, Inc. Widevine Content Decryption Module provided by Google Inc. about:addons shows 5 enabled - DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials - Flash and Video Download - Google Analytics Opt-out Add-on (by Google) - NoScript - Privacy Badger I've disabled on disk storage for the cache, so it's only in memory. about:memory can be used for very detailed measurements broken down by process id. So it doesn't appear to be a problem with firefox itself.
CC: (none) => davidwhodgins
It might be a plugin. I don't hav very many but I should probably try to disable them one by one.
There is now Firefox 91.2.0 ESR in updates testing to try, Bug 29525.
After restarting firefox to switch to the newly updated version, the mem numbers are pretty much the same as before, with the same tabs, addons, and plugins.
To troubleshoot such issues, it is always recommended to start Firefox in safe-mode. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/troubleshoot-extensions-themes-to-fix-problems#firefox:linux:fx91
Hi, Have you tried starting Firefox with a new profile?
CC: (none) => joselpddj
Status: UNCONFIRMED => NEWEver confirmed: 0 => 1CC: (none) => ftgKeywords: (none) => NEEDINFO
I that see it, is that Firefox open more slower in each new version in Linux, because in Windows 10 open fast, very fast... I don't know if from Mageia, we can fix this or simply, is a problem of Mozilla...but Firefox is show really bad in this to the Linux users.... In other things, I don't see to Firefox more slower that the others browsers and neither that eating more ram. Right now, from Firefox 91.3 all works ok, but it is very very slow opening... Chromium, for example, is very more fast whit the same extensions and settings Greetings!!
@Dag Sorry to have left this, it went off the radar. Are you still having the problem? How did you notice - or measure - "memory footprint"? Dave's suggestion of 'about:memory' is interesting, but the output is so detailed that the overall usage is not evident. The initial "Main Process" section looks most relevant.
CC: (none) => lewyssmith
(In reply to Lewis Smith from comment #11) > @Dag > Sorry to have left this, it went off the radar. > Are you still having the problem? How did you notice - or measure - "memory > footprint"? > > Dave's suggestion of 'about:memory' is interesting, but the output is so > detailed that the overall usage is not evident. The initial "Main Process" > section looks most relevant. Two months later... Dag, please _reopen_ this report if you still have the same problem, and provide the requested information.
Status: NEW => RESOLVEDCC: (none) => marja11Resolution: (none) => OLD