5:32 a.m.
Right,
For some time now, the speed with which firefox starts to load pages can
be aweful. I've not been sure where the problem lay until I got vmware
reworking this afternoon and I'm now sure it's firefox.
Sometimes the speed is fine, but other times it seems to take forever to
start loading.
Firefox in Windows in VMWare loads pages really fast. In fact, I loaded
www.ebay.com.au in FF/Win and then in FF/Lin. FF/Win was fine, but
while FF/Lin was still loading I went back and reloaded the page in
FF/Win and it had finished it before FF/Lin had even started loading the
page.
This is subjective, but it's not hard to observe from where I sit.
Given that FF/Win uses the Win network layer and then my Lin network
layer and it's performance is fine, I would expect FF/Lin to perform as
well, but it simply isn't a match.
Is FF/Lin inferior to FF/Win or is there something wrong with it that is
making this happen?
R.
--
"It's a fine line between denial and faith.
It's much better on my side"
5:45 a.m.
On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 20:32 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
Right,
For some time now, the speed with which firefox starts to load pages can
be aweful. I've not been sure where the problem lay until I got vmware
reworking this afternoon and I'm now sure it's firefox.
I am experiencing the same thing on this end. Maybe opening a terminal
while it's loading and running "top" might see if it or some other
program is pegging CPU or memory at that time?
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
"Best little town on Earth!"
5:54 a.m.
Mike Chambers wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 20:32 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> Right,
>
> For some time now, the speed with which firefox starts to load pages can
> be aweful. I've not been sure where the problem lay until I got vmware
> reworking this afternoon and I'm now sure it's firefox.
I am experiencing the same thing on this end. Maybe opening a terminal
while it's loading and running "top" might see if it or some other
program is pegging CPU or memory at that time?
And running wireshark to see if there's problems with
DNS, proxy, IPv6, etc. etc.
Mogens
--
Mogens Kjaer, Carlsberg A/S, Computer Department
Gamle Carlsberg Vej 10, DK-2500 Valby, Denmark
Phone: +45 33 27 53 25, Fax: +45 33 27 47 08
Email: mk(a)crc.dk Homepage: http://www.crc.dk
5:58 a.m.
On 24/08/07, Mike Chambers <mike(a)miketc.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 20:32 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> Right,
>
> For some time now, the speed with which firefox starts to load pages can
> be aweful. I've not been sure where the problem lay until I got vmware
> reworking this afternoon and I'm now sure it's firefox.
What have you tried in order to resolve this problem? Have you tried
disabling pango to see if this makes a difference? Have you run in safe mode
(with extensions/add-ons disabled) to ensure they are not affecting your
performance?
Regards
Chris
--
http://www.chruz.com
5:28 p.m.
On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 11:58 +0100, Christopher Brown wrote:
--
"It's a fine line between denial and faith.
It's much better on my side"
On 24/08/07, Mike Chambers <mike(a)miketc.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 20:32 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> Right,
>
> For some time now, the speed with which firefox starts to
load pages can
> be aweful. I've not been sure where the problem lay until I
got vmware
> reworking this afternoon and I'm now sure it's firefox.
What have you tried in order to resolve this problem? Have you tried
disabling pango to see if this makes a difference? Have you run in
safe mode (with extensions/add-ons disabled) to ensure they are not
affecting your performance?
Chris,
So far I've made some noise about the problem and found out I'm not
alone ;-]
I'm happy to try some of the suggestions you make.
Could you tell me how to disable pango?
R.
5:42 p.m.
On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 11:58 +0100, Christopher Brown wrote:
--
"It's a fine line between denial and faith.
It's much better on my side"
What have you tried in order to resolve this problem? Have you tried
disabling pango to see if this makes a difference? Have you run in
safe mode (with extensions/add-ons disabled) to ensure they are not
affecting your performance?
Okay, I turned off all my plugins (not that I have many) and after
closing firefox (and being sure that it was not running in ps ax, i
restarted it
I then hit CTRL-L and typed in www.ebay.com.au Mozilla started
'loading' the page, but the page remained blank for the next ~30 seconds
before anything appeared.
While this was happening I moved the desktop that Mozilla was on,
brought VMWare to the foreground, selected Mozilla in VMWare and loaded
the same page. In VMWare, the page appeared almost immediately and was
completely loaded within 5 seconds.
While all this was happening I saw spikes in the CPU (applet in the
panel) when firefox was visibly doing something but otherwise CPU usage
was consistent and low (less than 10%).
5:57 p.m.
On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 11:58 +0100, Christopher Brown wrote:
--
"It's a fine line between denial and faith.
It's much better on my side"
On 24/08/07, Mike Chambers <mike(a)miketc.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 20:32 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> Right,
>
> For some time now, the speed with which firefox starts to
load pages can
> be aweful. I've not been sure where the problem lay until I
got vmware
> reworking this afternoon and I'm now sure it's firefox.
What have you tried in order to resolve this problem? Have you tried
disabling pango to see if this makes a difference? Have you run in
safe mode (with extensions/add-ons disabled) to ensure they are not
affecting your performance?
Okay, I've discovered that the first load is consistently bad. By this
I mean, when I start firefox, the first load that happens as part of
this. (I also suspect that if I leave firefox for a while (subjective)
that they first load when I resume using it is also bad.
As an example, it too 2.5 minutes (yes, you read the right) to
completely load the front page of www.ebay.com.au (which I have made my
home page).
As a comparison, Mozilla in VMWare loads www.ebay.com.au consistently in
less than 5 seconds.
And it's the same for other pages. For example, I've typed the last
three paragraphs in the time it's taken to actually change the page from
www.ebay.com.au to www.slashdot.org. In fact, it still hasn't happened.
Ah, there it goes. Once it starts loading the page, then it usually
loads very quickly.
So what else can I test?
R.
8:20 p.m.
New subject: Firefox performance - dns ?
Rodd Clarkson wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 11:58 +0100, Christopher Brown wrote:
> On 24/08/07, Mike Chambers <mike(a)miketc.com> wrote:
...
www.ebay.com.au to www.slashdot.org. In fact, it still hasn't
happened.
Ah, there it goes. Once it starts loading the page, then it usually
loads very quickly.
So what else can I test?
dig www.ebay.com.au
dig www.slashdot.org
what are the lookup times presented near the bottom of the results ?
Are you using proxy on or off in firefox ?
Are you using a dodgy isp's transparent proxy like tpg ?
DaveT.
11 p.m.
New subject: Firefox performance - dns ?
On Sun, 2007-08-26 at 11:20 +1000, David Timms wrote:
Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 11:58 +0100, Christopher Brown wrote:
>> On 24/08/07, Mike Chambers <mike(a)miketc.com> wrote:
...
> www.ebay.com.au to www.slashdot.org. In fact, it still hasn't happened.
>
> Ah, there it goes. Once it starts loading the page, then it usually
> loads very quickly.
>
> So what else can I test?
dig www.ebay.com.au
[rodd@localhost ~]$ dig www.ebay.com.au
; <<>> DiG 9.4.2b1 <<>> www.ebay.com.au
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 57709
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 9, ADDITIONAL: 9
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.ebay.com.au. IN A
<snip>
;; Query time: 4 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.1.254#53(192.168.1.254)
;; WHEN: Sun Aug 26 13:57:47 2007
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 439
dig www.slashdot.org
[rodd@localhost ~]$ dig www.slashdot.org
; <<>> DiG 9.4.2b1 <<>> www.slashdot.org
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 33266
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 4
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.slashdot.org. IN A
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.slashdot.org. 7200 IN A 66.35.250.151
<snip>
;; Query time: 267 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.1.254#53(192.168.1.254)
;; WHEN: Sun Aug 26 13:58:00 2007
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 205
what are the lookup times presented near the bottom of the results ?
see above
Are you using proxy on or off in firefox ?
off
Are you using a dodgy isp's transparent proxy like tpg ?
Not aware of one and pretty sure there isn't one in place.
R.
--
"It's a fine line between denial and faith.
It's much better on my side"
9:51 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Rodd Clarkson wrote:
Okay, I've discovered that the first load is consistently bad. By this
I mean, when I start firefox, the first load that happens as part of
this. (I also suspect that if I leave firefox for a while (subjective)
that they first load when I resume using it is also bad.
As an example, it too 2.5 minutes (yes, you read the right) to
completely load the front page of www.ebay.com.au (which I have made my
home page).
What kind of hardware and how much ram do you have. On my machine (and
I'm in the US) that page loaded in < 10 seconds. My machine is a 1.7Ghz
Pentium M and I have 2GB of RAM.
As a comparison, Mozilla in VMWare loads www.ebay.com.au consistently
in
less than 5 seconds.
And it's the same for other pages. For example, I've typed the last
three paragraphs in the time it's taken to actually change the page from
www.ebay.com.au to www.slashdot.org. In fact, it still hasn't happened.
slashdot.org loads in 4 seconds here.
Ah, there it goes. Once it starts loading the page, then it usually
loads very quickly.
So what else can I test?
It sounds like you may have a DNS resolution problem. Might want to make
sure the DNS server you are using is the best you can. I actually have a
caching DNS server on my network, but even my ISPs is not that slow.
Kevin
- --
Get my public GnuPG key from
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7D0BD5D1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Remi - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG0Oqg6w2kMH0L1dERAn91AJ42hso+2oEkCtWG7jcT10QkmT2XlgCfcU8R
yBVxRr6Ltf0D7yu0zzFb1Bo=
=wRB6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11:03 p.m.
On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 20:51 -0600, Kevin DeKorte wrote:
> So what else can I test?
It sounds like you may have a DNS resolution problem. Might want to make
sure the DNS server you are using is the best you can. I actually have a
caching DNS server on my network, but even my ISPs is not that slow.
Actually, I've done a little more testing and I copied ~/.mozilla to
~/.mozilla.org and all of a sudden firefox was running nicely again.
A little more looking around (copying files from the old .mozilla to the
new .mozilla I discover that something in my prefs.js file is causing
the problem.
I've been using (through various upgrades) this prefs.js we before
firefox became the default in Fedora/Redhat so it appears there's
something in there that it doesn't like.
I'm now trying to figure out what it is.
R.
--
"It's a fine line between denial and faith.
It's much better on my side"
11:59 p.m.
Rodd Clarkson wrote:
On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 20:51 -0600, Kevin DeKorte wrote:
>> So what else can I test?
> It sounds like you may have a DNS resolution problem. Might want to make
> sure the DNS server you are using is the best you can. I actually have a
> caching DNS server on my network, but even my ISPs is not that slow.
Actually, I've done a little more testing and I copied ~/.mozilla to
~/.mozilla.org and all of a sudden firefox was running nicely again.
A little more looking around (copying files from the old .mozilla to the
new .mozilla I discover that something in my prefs.js file is causing
the problem.
I've been using (through various upgrades) this prefs.js we before
firefox became the default in Fedora/Redhat so it appears there's
something in there that it doesn't like.
I'm now trying to figure out what it is.
Do you have ipv6 enabled ?
ifconfig...
Do you have cache settings {moz} set really large ?
If the problem is at all network based, then running wireshark, capture,
and then trying to load the page gives the answer to:
- how long till the dns is requested /responds ?
- is it waiting for ipv6 results ?
- which sites is it actually getting connected to:
- is that site fast.
DaveT.
10:11 p.m.
On Sun, 2007-08-26 at 14:59 +1000, David Timms wrote:
Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 20:51 -0600, Kevin DeKorte wrote:
>
>>> So what else can I test?
>> It sounds like you may have a DNS resolution problem. Might want to make
>> sure the DNS server you are using is the best you can. I actually have a
>> caching DNS server on my network, but even my ISPs is not that slow.
>
> Actually, I've done a little more testing and I copied ~/.mozilla to
> ~/.mozilla.org and all of a sudden firefox was running nicely again.
>
> A little more looking around (copying files from the old .mozilla to the
> new .mozilla I discover that something in my prefs.js file is causing
> the problem.
>
> I've been using (through various upgrades) this prefs.js we before
> firefox became the default in Fedora/Redhat so it appears there's
> something in there that it doesn't like.
>
> I'm now trying to figure out what it is.
Do you have ipv6 enabled ? ifconfig...
Do you have cache settings {moz} set really large ?
If the problem is at all network based, then running wireshark, capture,
and then trying to load the page gives the answer to:
- how long till the dns is requested /responds ?
- is it waiting for ipv6 results ?
- which sites is it actually getting connected to:
- is that site fast.
I'm positive the problems are due to one of the settings in prefs.js
now.
I realized I was having the same issues with seamonkey, so I moved the
prefs.js file to prefs.js.old and it recreates the file on start up and
then it loads pages at a much more acceptable speed.
I've done the same with my firefox prefs.js (using all my other original
settings) and it's vastly improved (and running like I would expect it
too).
I'm not sure what to look for in the prefs.js file, but if someone else
is intersted in grabbing my original (broken?) prefs.js file and trying
it on their install (to see if it causes the same grief) then that might
be interesting to do.
Should I file a bug against this?
R.
--
"It's a fine line between denial and faith.
It's much better on my side"
11:27 p.m.
Rodd Clarkson wrote:
I'm not sure what to look for in the prefs.js file, but if
someone else
is intersted in grabbing my original (broken?) prefs.js file and trying
it on their install (to see if it causes the same grief) then that might
be interesting to do.
Should I file a bug against this?
Maybe in Mozilla Bugzilla but I foobar'ed my configuration and I have no
idea what's wrong with it doesn't really make up for a good bug report.
If it wasn't custom configurations then it might make sense to do that.
Rahul
5:23 p.m.
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 09:57 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> I'm not sure what to look for in the prefs.js file, but if someone else
> is intersted in grabbing my original (broken?) prefs.js file and trying
> it on their install (to see if it causes the same grief) then that might
> be interesting to do.
>
> Should I file a bug against this?
Maybe in Mozilla Bugzilla but I foobar'ed my configuration and I have no
idea what's wrong with it doesn't really make up for a good bug report.
If it wasn't custom configurations then it might make sense to do that.
Ruhul,
That's the thing. I didn't Foobar my prefs.js file. In fact, I've only
ever changed a few things in it and they didn't affect performance at
the time.
Something has changed in firefox/seamonkey that now doesn't like
something in my prefs.js file and which is affecting performance.
In fact, it appears my wife is having the same issues too, and she's
never touched her prefs.js file (she wouldn't know what it was or where
to find it).
In short: this isn't something I've done.
I'm going to find out if my wife's prefs.js file in bunk and then file
upstream at firefox.
R.
--
"It's a fine line between denial and faith.
It's much better on my side"
5:33 p.m.
In fact, it appears my wife is having the same issues too, and
she's
never touched her prefs.js file (she wouldn't know what it was or where
to find it).
she don't have to edit the file or know that it exists changing
options in firefox saves the changes to this file... but the options
exposed by the UI shouln't have suchs effects.
7:33 p.m.
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 08:23 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 09:57 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Rodd Clarkson wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure what to look for in the prefs.js file, but if someone else
> > is intersted in grabbing my original (broken?) prefs.js file and trying
> > it on their install (to see if it causes the same grief) then that might
> > be interesting to do.
> >
> > Should I file a bug against this?
>
> Maybe in Mozilla Bugzilla but I foobar'ed my configuration and I have no
> idea what's wrong with it doesn't really make up for a good bug report.
> If it wasn't custom configurations then it might make sense to do that.
Ruhul,
That's the thing. I didn't Foobar my prefs.js file. In fact, I've only
ever changed a few things in it and they didn't affect performance at
the time.
Something has changed in firefox/seamonkey that now doesn't like
something in my prefs.js file and which is affecting performance.
In fact, it appears my wife is having the same issues too, and she's
never touched her prefs.js file (she wouldn't know what it was or where
to find it).
In short: this isn't something I've done.
I'm going to find out if my wife's prefs.js file in bunk and then file
upstream at firefox.
Sorry if I sound like I'm mumbling, I've got a mouthful of humble pie.
A big thanks for David Timms for trying out my prefs.js file and showing
me the error of my ways.
Turns out, I had a proxy set up and this was causing the problem. I
reverted back to my original prefs.js file and turned of proxying (which
I don't need and wasn't using since there was no way the proxy it was
set up for would be visible from my home) and all it good now.
What is strange is that this problem only manifested in the past few
months. The url I had in my proxy settings was for a business I worked
for some 18 months ago and at the time I set it up it caused me no
problems when I was using the Internet at home and at other places. The
url was only visible internally. Something in firefox/seamonkey has
changed recently that has made this more of an issue, but it didn't need
to be set up anyway so I've turned it off.
Is it worth looking into whether firefox should cope better if you set
up an proxy with a 'bad' url in it?
R.
--
"It's a fine line between denial and faith.
It's much better on my side"
6123
days inactive
6128
days old
19 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Adam Pribyl -
Christopher Brown -
Development discussions related to Fedora -
drago01 -
Kevin DeKorte -
Mike Chambers -
Mogens Kjaer -
Rahul Sundaram -
Rodd Clarkson