Firefox 1.0 has major memory leaks

[mircleman]

joseph let me clarify something I think ff is a decent browser I do have it but use about 3% of the time so far from a fan boy. I use my own coded browser coded by me and my company we dont have any of these issues. I just think ff gets alot of flack because it not microsoft thats all.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

No.  You don't seem to understand how this works.  This is memory profiled when the program is closed, when it's supposed to free ALL memory.  This has nothing to do with total memory usage, but rather amount of memory allocated vs. freed.

585515253[/snapback]

If by "close the last instance" you mean quit the Firefox process completely, then that is indeed a true memory leak, and a bug. Not freeing your own memory and leaving Windows to clean up your mess after you terminate is hardly justifiable, even for "performance-enhancing purposes."

And even if you mean that it keeps the images in the ram cache (as opposed to disk cache,) after you close the the tab/window, that is still poor design.

585515254[/snapback]

All I can say is that I opened a site is MSIE and the memory usage climbed up to 100+MB while the images was loading but then iexplore settled back to using only 15MB of memory. So no leak right?

When then is this system so slow? Why did my Commit Charge (K) climb to 429892 from 218524? Why was the memory freed only when I quit MSIE?

They both seem to do the same thing. Microsoft is just sneakier at it.

[vcv]

From 1400 to... wait 14000 to 30 +/-... Thats a huge plummit in "memory leaks". I use "" due to how the term is being thrown around. I'm not going to sit here and argue all day, point being, its good you found them. Thanks for pointing them out. Next time make sure you double check your "statements" to make sure they are well thought out. Considering 20ish found is normal for most apps, I wouldnt quite consider this issue MAJOR... however they still should be addressed.

585515300[/snapback]

30 was without extensions, 6000 and 14000 were with extensions. I never retracted my statement that there were that mean leaks with extensions, because there is. So what is your point? A default clean install of FF seems to be ok, but with extensions, there is leaks. This is NOT by any means normal.

joseph  let me clarify something I think ff is a decent browser I do have it but use about 3% of the time so far from a fan boy. I use my own coded browser coded by me and my company we dont have any of these issues.  I just think ff gets alot of flack because it not microsoft thats all.

585515391[/snapback]

I imagine your browser uses the IE shell. Why code your own? I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just curious is all.

All I can say is that I opened a site is MSIE and the memory usage climbed up to 100+MB while the images was loading but then iexplore settled back to using only 15MB of memory.  So no leak right?

When then is this system so slow?  Why did my Commit Charge  (K) climb to 429892 from 218524?  Why was the memory freed only when I quit MSIE?

They both seem to do the same thing.  Microsoft is just sneakier at it.

585515395[/snapback]

You might want to run a profiler on IE before you make these ridiculous statements. You're not even talking about the same thing I am here, and it's getting annoying to try to explain to that that I'm talking about memory which is never free'd vs. current or total memory usage.

[AxelStone]

Wow, already a reply. This is fun. Extentions are often 3rd party, even if not, your statment ORIGINALLY was how FF has 14k +/- memory leaks... This thread was a BBQ waiting to happen mainly due to the inadiquate forethought in the post, and it seems everyone has a match...

I'm curious now to see what issues just straight mozilla has, guess I'll wait till tonight to find out... unless someone has usefull info for me? :)

[Malisk]

Yup, there's even a Bugzilla bug for this issue in Firefox.

Browsing full size images on Deviantart + their galleries for an hour or two, and I usually have Firefox consuming about 150-200+ MB and putting considerable load on my system. Other browsers does nothing near that. If I go on, it just keeps climbing.

I've forgot the bug # by now, but it's a huge thread about it with dozens of votes for it...

When you close tabs it will not automatically free all of that memory.? Shortly after you close the last instance of FireFox it will.? It is not a "true" memory leak.? It is not even a bug, it is done for performance-enhancing purposes.

No, I think you're speaking of the same memory cache problem as I do. And there is indeed a bugzilla bug for this that's been open for over a year without being closed as INVALID with a ton of comments, so it's definitely "real". It's not too hard to understand either, as the performance enhancing memory cache grows so large that it worsen system performance and defeats its own purpose. Caches are only useful when they're carefully tuned for the rest of the system resources. Firefox' cache is not.

[ichi]

It would be interesting to check which extension was causing the leaks (if it happened to be one particular extension).

[Fred Derf Veteran]

joseph  let me clarify something I think ff is a decent browser I do have it but use about 3% of the time so far from a fan boy. I use my own coded browser coded by me and my company we dont have any of these issues.  I just think ff gets alot of flack because it not microsoft thats all.

585515391[/snapback]

Firefox gets a lot of support because it's not Microsoft too! It works both ways.

[vcv]

Wow, already a reply. This is fun. Extentions are often 3rd party, even if not, your statment ORIGINALLY was how FF has 14k +/- memory leaks... This thread was a BBQ waiting to happen mainly due to the inadiquate forethought in the post, and it seems everyone has a match...

585515444[/snapback]

Actually my original statement was that there were 6,000 leaks (when I had extensions installed). supernova suggested trying with no extensions or themes, so I did. With this, there were 30max.

Now, stay with me here. Firefox extensions use a combination of XUL and javascript. Javascript is a language that requires no memory management on your part, nor can you allocate memory in it. The JS engine is responsible for all memory. As well, XUL is a markup language and has nothing to do with memory management.

Given this information, it is fair to conclude that there should never be a case where a Firefox extension can cause memory leaks and have it be the developers fault.

Firefox gets a lot of support because it's not Microsoft too!? It works both ways.

585515457[/snapback]

Yes, this is true. However, thereare> cases where certain bugs have been known for weeks/months/even years and ignored. Not security bugs, mind you, but major bugs still. :pp

[AxelStone]

...and there lies where I learned that FF seems to have issues with using extentions. If you had followed through and done thought into your original post it would have stated that. Instead a few lines of arguing/suggestions before comming to the REAL conclusion

FF has issues with extentions, I see that now. Since I have never used any extentions with FF (I still use Moz as my default), I have never noticed this. Hence my original desire to just post "WTF are you smoking", but I refrained and NOW I understand...

That is why I was poking at you about get your stuff in order before you post stuff like this. That set aside 90% of your arguments would have been avoided and less time wasted... but at least you aleviated some bordem while I'm at work with no active tickets.

[vcv]

If you had followed through and done thought into your original post it would have stated that. Instead a few lines of arguing/suggestions before comming to the REAL conclusion

What don't you understand here? My original post was and still is a real conclusion. FF with or without extensions is still FF, and there is leaks. Yes, it was later learned that it only leaked that bad with extensions, but that does not take away from the original post, it simply adds to it.

[AxelStone]

I spammed this quote as an example... I'm done, I shouldntv ever tried to point this out, but meebe thisl finish it. It confused me, I'm not a programer. I am not a newbie.(not starting an argument about someone saying i was) I wanted it to be pointed so the novice/beginner people can make sense of this! The whole thread to a point was totally based on OMFG 6k, 14k, wow alotv leaks! Instead of a proper diag of, "FF has major issues with extentions!!!" I'm glad there are people willing to take the time to keep this kind of thing on the front burner, and not just accept something as better simply because its different. PLEASE take my post at face value instead of turning it into an argument. Your revelation didnt "add to" the original post, it clarified it.

This is NOT an attempt to troll by any means, it is meant as a warning.

I ran a memory profiler on Firefox 1.0 just now, and the results were astonishing.? The tool used detects any memory that a program does not free when it is done with that memory.? These leaks are leaks found after the program was done.

2 tabs were loaded, and each page reloaded twice.? Firefox was only running for about 60-90 seconds.

Just to make sure I was reading it right, I ran the profiler on 4 other applications, 2 other web browsers, an a chat program and an email client.? All other programs reported fewer than 10 memory leaks.

GlowCode Leaks -- C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe, Tue Feb 22 07:55:22 2005

Leaks found, 6416 blocks, 242150 bytes

Click here for the full results.

585515043[/snapback]

Further visual proof.? If this doesn't bother you, I don't know what to say.

supernova: this is not how much memory is in use.? This is how much memory was allocated and never freed.? Thememory leaksaks.

I ran it again, and got even worse results :(

585515089[/snapback]

What a joke.? Thisaa leak, this is thousands of leaks.

First version of the browser, so thousands of memory leaks are ok?? Please spare me the BS.? Memory leaks are NEVER okay.? There is an acceptable range, but 6,000 is NOT an acceptable range, nor is 14,000.

1. This was the after the application had been closed closed

2. This is mwas not freed when it should have beenve been

3. I only loaded 2 tabs, and refreshed each page twice.? This should not cause such harsh memory problems.

585515096[/snapback]

Extensions:

I have about 20 installed.? I will run again on a clean install.? However, extensions are not responsible for the memory management, FF is.? So this is still a problem regardless of whether or not its the extensions.

585515129[/snapback]

...memory leaks happen, but in smaller numbers.? It is common for programs to miss a few things here and there, but not to this calibur.

585515170[/snapback]

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/klaxon.htm

Edited February 22, 2005 by AxelStone

[vcv]

The whole thread to a point was totally based on OMFG 6k, 14k, wow alotv leaks!

Did I act like that in my original post? Nope. But 6k is a lot of leaks, so I thought it was pretty important.

Instead of a proper diag of, "FF has major issues with extentions!!!"

I did not know it was the extensions causing it until afterwords. So excuse me.

Your revelation didnt "add to" the original post, it clarified it.

I would say both actually.

I was only arguing with you because it appeared you were trying to discredit my original post by saying it wasn't a "Real conclusion" and such. Everything in my original post still stands true, however.

ttp://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/klaxon.htm

This might have some relevancy if anything I said were not true, and this were a conspiracy theory.

[AxelStone]

I just posted the url to give credit for the image. I Just thought the image was funny. :)

[AaronMT]

So where can one obtain a new nightly?

[xxdesmus]

WARNING .... don't use caps in the title of your thread....genius :blink: :huh:

Never experienced a memory leak here. Maybe it's just you. :whistle:

[AaronMT]

WARNING .... don't use caps in the title of your thread....genius :blink: :huh:

Never experienced a memory leak here. Maybe it's just you. :whistle:

585515804[/snapback]

When I used Firefox, mine was hitting around 200+ MB of ram with two or three tabs open using no extensions.

The product is a complete failure at this version number.

[vcv]

I just posted the url to give credit for the image. I Just thought the image was funny. :)

585515765[/snapback]

Oh.. it is.. but not when someone links it after replying to one of your posts :/

WARNING .... don't use caps in the title of your thread....genius :blink: :huh:

Never experienced a memory leak here. Maybe it's just you. :whistle:

585515804[/snapback]

Really? Do you run memory profilers everytime you run firefox?

[Steffan]

So where can one obtain a new nightly?

585515795[/snapback]

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fir...y/latest-trunk/

[bgeh]

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fir...02-22-07-trunk/

could you try running this build and tell me how many leaks are there?

i wanna see how much the current ff build has progressed after ff1.0

thanks :)

[vip]

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fir...02-22-07-trunk/

could you try running this build and tell me how many leaks are there?

i wanna see how much the current ff build has progressed after ff1.0

thanks :)

585515986[/snapback]

Not Found

The requested URL /pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2005-02-22-07-trunk/ was not found on this server.

[takkun]

memory leaks it's not news on FF, i've had experienced'em myself, but it's not like our computers are going to explode if we keep using FF, no need for a 'WARNING! Firefox 1.0 has major memory leaks!!!!!!11'

as for those who think FF is a total failure you can contact Mozilla for a refund, oh wait...

[vcv]

Not Found

The requested URL /pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2005-02-22-07-trunk/ was not found on this server.

585516244[/snapback]

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fir...2.installer.msi

[imtoomuch]

The product is a complete failure at this version number.

585515812[/snapback]

That's completely ridiculous. That's probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen anybody on Neowin say.

[Tuffgong4]

I've been experiencing the same thing for a long time way before 1.0 even. To me it's not that big o deal. also this is something that not a lot of people notice since they don't have the task manager running all the time to see what processes are still hanging on when the program is closed.

The only reason I knew FF was still holding onto memory (and I don't use any extensions) was that I use OBjectdock. Most people know this but I will say it anyway...when you open a program from the dock a little indicator says that it is running, well, almost 75% of the time when Iclose FF it still has the indicator there saying it's still running. That got me suspicious so I figured that it was still hanging onto memory.

THOUGH, I don't know what happened but it hasn't been happening as much recently and I haven't installed any nightlys (sp?) either. Also this has been happening to me as far back as before the switch from firebird to firefox. I think that long but not 100% positive.

In the end of it I still use it and it's not that big of a deal. Just an annoying little bug.

[mircleman]

I imagine your browser uses the IE shell. Why code your own? I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just curious is all.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh no I dont use an I.E. shell or any other shell I designed it and me and few others coded it I dont use any thing ms cept on one machine. everything is mine/my companys. and before you ask no we dont code it in C or any variation of c or any known computer language for that matter. thats why we dont have the issues we do that most others do.