HOw u reduce memory in Firefox?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by sweater, Jan 1, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SMC1979

    SMC1979 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Posts:
    17
    Your right, I didn't read all the posts, I skimmed through them :p

    Again I am not trying to nor want to fight or anything. I respect all users opinions.

    Some people are forced with bad memory leaking programs. I have a few users who have Windows 2003 server farms. They have this old company program that HAS to be used that has a horrid memory leak. Cleanmem has kept it under control for 2 years now. The leak use to suck up all the memory and all the page file to where the program had to be killed and restarted. Since cleanmem they haven't had to restart the program once.

    CleanMem does have a purpose. But it isn't a miracle cure all.

    Thats why I also made the ignore and only list. Say you don't want cleanmem to touch anything other than say firefox.exe.
    You could put firefox.exe in the only list and cleanmem will only call the api on it and leave the rest alone. The ignore list is ones you want cleanmem to skip while getting all the others.

    I tired to make it to where everyone could find a use for it they needed it.

    Nothing is perfect. No OS is perfect, no program, no human, nothing I have seen in my life is perfect.

    I am simply giving a tool to those who need it is all. :)

    But I can promise that it doesn't slow the system down in any way. I have had CleanMem downloaded over 500,000 times and haven't had a single user report any slow downs. I have it running on every one of my customers machines and servers. So I have the track record to show it doesn't hurt.

    I made cleanmem a few years ago. Xp days. I have it running on all my Windows 7 as well. But that has just kept the memory crazy programs in check. Performance is not noticeable on a system with plenty of memory.

    Again, the less the hard drive is needed the less of a slow down on the system. That is my goal.

    Shane
     
  2. SMC1979

    SMC1979 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Posts:
    17
    Thought some papers from Microsoft would help that more. ;)

    http://download.microsoft.com/downl...7E-CE7CE0D98DC2/MemorySizingGuidanceWin7.docx

    http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/E/7/7E7662CF-CBEA-470B-A97E-CE7CE0D98DC2/Win7Perf.docx

    -Shane
     
  3. sweater

    sweater Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,678
    Location:
    Philippines, the Political Dynasty Capital of the
    There is an error msg while trying to install/download that addon, so I just try to choose another one called AFOM memory recovers Memory Leakage. It has some good reviews...so maybe it'll also works on mine. :D
     
  4. allizomeniz

    allizomeniz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Posts:
    943
    All I can say is I do wish Firefox was a little lighter, but when it uses resources it makes good use of them, making browsing more enjoyable. It's all a trade off I guess.

    I've noticed the more tabs I have open the more memory use goes up. But even when I close all but one or two tabs the memory use stays high until I restart FF. It would be great if there was a way to flush the memory without having to restart but so far I haven't found it.
     
  5. Franklin

    Franklin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,517
    Location:
    West Aussie
    Turn off FF's useless inbuilt security and delete both the urlclassifier3.sqlite and urlclassifier2.sqlite files.

    Not saying anyone do the same but that's what I do.

    Google Search
     
  6. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    As I said before memory leaks occur in the process' private memory. That's the private bytes. There can't be a memory leak in the working set, as Windows already has control over that. The working set of a process cannot grow indefinitely, the memory manager will say "woah, hold your horses" and will intervene. No need for additional control over memory leaks.

    That doesn't prove much. I'm not saying it's meaningless, but just because you've gotten no reports it doesn't mean there aren't any problems with the program. Not every person who encounters a bug/problem with a given program would take his/her time to report it. Actually most don't.

    It's sort of like: I've been using antivirus X for 3 years now and have never had an infection, ergo the program kicks ass and is (among) the best.


    I am familiar with these. They however don't help your case. Both the working set and the standby pages are in the physical memory (RAM). Moving pages from the WS to the standby page list accomplishes nothing. The idea is that standby pages are part of the available memory and can be given to another process? If yes, then why bother, as Windows will do that as well if it needs to.
    Besides, on a system with low amount of RAM the memory manager would have set a smaller number for the standby page list which would mean fewer standby pages there. If more such pages get shoved in there then other would have to be ejected and moved to the free page list, and finally to the zero page list. That's fine, as it's quick, but if a program decides to call back something from the standby list that had been ejected to make room for another page, then that program would have to go the hard driv for it.

    The quote about the SuperFetch feature in Windows Vista and Windows 7 also doesn't seem to support your ideas, as it shows that those OS already are smart enough... actually smarter than CleanMem and do not need help from it.
     
  7. guest

    guest Guest

    NV, CleanMem really improves performance here (a lot), that's all that really matters (for me) and I can guarantee that it's not some sort of "psychological" effect.

    I think of CleanMem as an essential for the "sluggish hardware + WinXP" combo, such as the one I'm using right now.
     
  8. SMC1979

    SMC1979 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Posts:
    17
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc938582.aspx
    Working Set reports the shared and private bytes allocated to a process; its value tends to rise for a leaking process.


    That is because in 32 bit a process can't have more than 2GB. That is the 32 bit limit. 64 bit is MUCH higher. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx
    8TB for a 64 bit program vs 2GB for 32 bit.

    "No need for additional control over memory leaks"? WOW! all those leaks I have seen over the last 15 years must have been part of a dream. Firefox up to 500 MB, explorer.exe up to 1GB. iexplorer.exe using every last bit of memory (Of a 8GB system) and page file (8 GB as well) to where the system started crashing till it was killed.

    Gee, Windows doesn't do such a good job does it?
    That is because it is NOT Windows job to clean up after 3rd party programs. This is why programmers are taught about clearing code to free memory when they are done with it. If Windows did this for them, no one would bother.
    How did these well known programs get so high in memory? Because these where unforeseen bugs, caused by a unforeseen situation.

    Why do people think Windows is this perfect piece of code? How can ANY manager of any sort cover every single variable of what a situation might be? Last time I checked, no app existed that had a answer for every single situation.

    Nothing I say or do will change Night_Raven's opinion. And that's why this war between people has gone on for so long, and why it is so pointless.

    CleanMem could crap gold and he wouldn't change his mind, once people are set on something, getting them to change it is nearly impossible.

    Night_Raven still hasn't used the program for more than most likely a few minutes, he has no desire to. And it doesn't bother me. The only thing that bothers me is a person bringing claims of something not working without long term tests and results to back it up.

    I have yet to find one person who has had a slow down with cleanmem. So just like guest who knows there is a difference, people like Night_Raven will just say it is all in your head.

    Patient: "Hey doc! my arm really hurts!!"
    Doc: Not knowing the cause of the pain..."Bah! its all in your head"

    Interesting thing about Humans, teach a person from when they are born to adulthood that the sky is red. Always telling them the sky is red.

    Then one day, as an adult someone says, "no the sky is blue". The adult who believes the sky is red loses his mind calling the other person a liar! and hits him in the head with a rock. Religion and politics have a stench of this bad trait of ours. And it shows in everything.

    Even as simple as getting a person, who has read, was taught and learned things about Windows memory, simply can not wrap their mind around that fact that something works and goes against what they think and have learned.

    So why bother fighting with them ;)

    Now this is no dis on Night_Raven. It is just a point of how silly things can get. I have never seen a scientist who had credit, that never did any long term tests to back up their claims. That just seems to be in the computer world. :p

    Shane
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2011
  9. SMC1979

    SMC1979 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Posts:
    17
    I can see this dragging out.

    sweater I apologize for hijacking this thread.

    If you want firefox to use lower memory I offer you to try my CleanMem, it is free, and if you don't like it you can uninstall it :)

    It will help you with firefox. ;)

    This will be my last post, I can only see Night_Raven and myself debating over this till our geeky hearts burst :p

    I have to go take care of my users.

    Good luck sweater, and thanks to all of you who have been using cleanmem and like it.

    Happy new year!

    Shane
     
  10. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    Well, I tried. It's also sad that the supposedly educated users of this forum fall for such things.
    The information on how the Windows memory manager works is available on the Internet. Anyone can google it, read it, apply common logic with a little bit of thinking process and come to a conclusion. If that's not one's cup of tea, then there are plenty of optimization programs/tools/tweaks and other voodoo stuff out there.

    And... uhm... this is no "diss" on anyone. See, I can use it too. :)
     
  11. ZentSiber

    ZentSiber Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Posts:
    1
    From everything I've seen, it isn't exactly fair to say they are falling for something. An overwhelming amount of PC users aren't "power users" and if a user has a computer that isn't as responsive as it used to be or even locks up on them (due to anything from poorly programmed out of control apps, OS rot, bad drivers, minimal RAM or other hardware, software bloat, or any other number of reasons) and they try out a small (free) app and now their machines stay responsive and don't freeze under the *same exact* use then what is wrong with that?

    This works the same way as troubleshooting. If you make a single change to a system and then something doesn't work correctly anymore then the cause was probably that change. If you reverse the change and the problem returns then you know what the cause was. You might know now *why* that was the cause but to most, it doesn't matter. This author is trying to make the same point. If a computer "doesn't work well" due to memory issues and CleanMem is installed and the problem goes away (and doesn't create any other problems) but the *same* problems come back if the app is removed then all signs point to CleanMem fixed it. Most computer users won't care how or why...they are just happy that it works.

    You probably have a computer setup to where it would just be "another process you don't need". For me, Anti-Virus (especially real-time protection) is one of those. My system is much more reliable and responsive without Anti-Virus software. I haven't used it for years and as long as I am the only one who uses my computer it stays infection free...because I know what to do and what not to do.
     
  12. Bambo

    Bambo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Posts:
    194
    Actually the problem is that few if any ever expand on "problem goes away". First, what was the problem to begin with? "Memory issues" are? Next, let us see the logs from CleanMem (over en periode of hours not just a WEE I saw numbers changing), let us hear about people configurations (are we talking about a 1gb Notebook running XP or a 16gb desktop with 7?) - get some details on the table, drop the MS references. Are we over in weirdo config land where anything is possible? or does CleanMem works for every possible computer? I think I know how logs will look like = more fuel for Night_Raven but we will see ;) For Firefox the extension that was mentioned will give similar results. What this has to do with fixing "memory leaks" in the program I don't know. You do that via Bugzilla by supplying bugreports or fix code and that is a 100% fact. Also it might be a good idea to understand how Firefox use memory and why it is risky to compare directly with other numbers or just throw them out as if they are proof of anything, especially through an internet forum. 1-2 "anti-firefox" pages can be enough to shoot memory usage several 100s of mb. Tricky to troubleshoot, very little magic to it though.

    A wise man said about NoScript it was a solution in search of a problem ;)

    Many people will not look passively at their Windows, they want to change stuff just because they can or have visited UniBlue/Auslogic type of site or seen a "system tweaking" section at a popular download site! On the other hand they are not prepared to make much research so here comes programs like CleanMem. Why I said if program is free and harmless who cares? Could be a lot worse. Would be nice to hear details from experiences though, preferably not too obscure ones.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2011
  13. tlu

    tlu Guest

  14. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,797
    I'm no expert but the way I understand it is as following (all in laymen terms so forgive me for any incorrect interpretation/explanation):

    Windows already manages memory well in the sense that it makes extensive use of the memory available instead of leaving it unused. Unused memory, in the eyes of MS programmers (or whoever you deem came up with the design/idea), equates to a 'waste' of readily available resource. As such, Windows memory management suits for modern hardware with sufficient or much RAM. In this case, Night_Raven is right to state it as such:

    However, for some applications when used on older machines or machines with lower specs, Windows memory management might inadvertently negate the system performance seeing that by design, the app is allocated much of the memory resource available it needs(which is unfortunately limited in the 1st place). In this case, when another app needs memory and makes a "request" for it, it has to 'wait' for the default Windows memory management to allocate to it.

    The only way CleanMem plays a role here is in that it "uses the same Windows API call" albeit at a rate that is determined by the user instead of leaving it solely to the default designed within Windows. For example, a user can set CleanMem to manage the particular apps process only via the task scheduler every 5 minutes or so (just an example). This way, the user benefits from both the default Windows memory management for the rest of the entire system (ignored by CleanMem) while CleanMem (with the help of Windows itself) manages the memory usage of the determined 'problematic' app(s) and/or process(es).

    Again, the emphasis here is that "Windows doesn't need anything complementing its memory manager" holds true (especially more so for instances where every drop of memory usage is preferred for speed) BUT "some apps need more help than just Windows memory manager" is one that's true when memory itself is scarce.

    Night Raven has earlier on stated it this way:

    Going by that logic, one may also view it as "CleanMem does it too, more aggressively (by default every 30 mins and for entire system), BUT it can be set for certain apps only and ignoring the rest".

    P.S. I was initially a skeptic but CleanMem changed my perceptions.
     
  15. sweater

    sweater Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,678
    Location:
    Philippines, the Political Dynasty Capital of the
    I've installed this. Does it needs any configuration (I couldn't find anything to adjust or change in the setting) or it just runs automatically after it was installed? A install and forget program?
     
  16. GlobalForce

    GlobalForce Regular Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Posts:
    3,581
    Location:
    Garden State, USA
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2011
  17. IDEVFH

    IDEVFH Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2010
    Posts:
    4
    Could you at least post a link with updated information that's not over 2 years old?

    Title: CleanMem – A Windows Memory Cleaner That Works
    Author: by Varun Kashyap on Oct. 18th, 2008

    How many Window's OS Service Packs have been published with the Virtual Memory Manager improvements and Microsoft Language Compilers included since the article was published ?

    If the same foundation principle API actions for CleanMem are with Microsoft's .Net applications as built-in, maybe someone that makes a negative comment about CleanMem should contact Microsoft and mention your comments on MSDN for all to see.

    Additionally, read the OS SDK APIs nomenclatures and test them for yourself before making comments of a product that has benefited 1k+ others.

    Regards,
    IDEVFH
     
  18. Boyfriend

    Boyfriend Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Posts:
    1,070
    Location:
    Pakistan
    No configuration needed and it will run automatically, though I have changed its duration to every 10 minutes via Task Scheduler. Simply open Task Scheduler and change CleanMem execution time (default is every 30 minutes). There is no other configuration needed. You can enable CleanMem Mini Monitor and this will give you further information about memory usage. Moreover, you can manually run CleanMem from right click of CleanMem Mini Monitor --> Clean Memory.
     
  19. IDEVFH

    IDEVFH Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2010
    Posts:
    4
    How many allocated Heaps per process that set idle in Ram Memories do you think gets flushed out by CleanMem for dormant functionality support to said process ?

    CleanMem API requests to the Virtual Manager will help prevent the dormant Heap build up for other processes to benefit instead of waiting for an auto invoke.

    Edit: Without the help of 3rd party application add-ons along with system drivers intervention the OSs would suffer pc unit productivity as expected.

    Regards,
    IDEVFH
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2011
  20. dantz

    dantz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Posts:
    1,034
    Location:
    Hawaii
    This is a controversial topic, so a purely theoretical discussion can only get you so far. Personally, I'd like to see some tangible evidence. It would be very helpful if the developer of Cleanmem could provide or recommend some specific and meaningful real-life tests that would clearly demonstrate the usefulness of his product (and I mean more than just watching some numbers change on a display). For example, I'd like to personally observe how his product can be used to mitigate a memory-related slowdown or even prevent a crash that would otherwise have occurred.
    IDEVFH, it's not entirely clear to me what you're trying to say here, although it does seem that you're employing sarcasm to make a point. Would you mind rephrasing that paragraph?
     
  21. IDEVFH

    IDEVFH Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2010
    Posts:
    4
    Most of the comments I've read constitute what has already been repeated from previous users in articles of the past and that without much verification other than Non-Constructive criticisms.

    Flaming out on the author of CleanMem is not what I would call a theoretical discussion, dantz. I would say that the author has placed tons of man hours for something of which was to contribute to helping others. There's your sarcasm, dantz.

    dantz, you ask for a test: Instantiate all below.
    1. Run Google Earth with a populated repeat-loop fly-by tour.
    2. Open up multiple instance of your Browser loaded with Tabs of flash webpages.
    3. Run iTunes with looped music
    4. Run TweetDeck OR Seesmic Desktop apps.
    5. Microsoft Office - Open any of the apps with loaded material.

    Watch the consumption level for as long as you can monitor.

    Then try, with CleanMem the same 5.

    My last comment about this subject.

    Regards,
    IDEVFH
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2011
  22. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,797
    Personally, I find that it's good to see the author of MemoryFox (IDEVFH) backing up the author of CleanMem (Shane) on this thread.:thumb: :thumb:
     
  23. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    Hi Franklin:

    What exactly do you have in mind as "useless inbuilt security"

    I hope you don't mean NoScript:eek:


    On these 2
    Before I take your advice please tell me / the thread what these do. I know you are busy but it would clarify things for this user anyway.

    Thanks
     
  24. Bambo

    Bambo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Posts:
    194
    A couple more and you have the whole group of memory optimizing developers. They almost got terminated after 95/98/ME I think. Outlived ram compressors though :)

    Firefox vs. Memoryfox - so why not let IDEVFH take care of that? What the thread is about anyway. I have tried it and it works much the same way CleanMem did when I tried that long time ago. Rollercoaster trick and not really of any value. There are other tricks like not loading tabs until you actually click them. A couple of extensions do that. Firefox 4 has applied some of that logic, one of the reasons it opens faster. Windows 7 the same with some services. Pure logic and common sense and that usually works, can be reproduced even.

    I think it is normal to expect those who present whatever to make some sort of argument or proof if you will. Since nobody bother doing any real testing, over some hours at least and not necessarily with a stupid torture scenario, being skeptical is in order. Not the same as flaming. If anyone claims to fix Firefox "memory leaks" with such tools, it be internal or via plugins, I would open door for flaming though probably not allowed. But as said before may be better to share knowledge with those who actually code the beast, anyone can join the party at Bugzilla - open 24/7. I would like to see how that goes though I have a good idea ;)

    He is talking about Googles block list (attack/malware sites, phishing) Escalader and sadly not NoScript ;) There are little to no overhead by blocking sites via inbuild shield but whatever. Very easy to claim that and very easy to prove it wrong... If worried about database size just compact them next time you run CCleaner or other tool with that feature. Sqlite databases work way better/faster in Firefox 4 btw. I still doubt any human being have ever noticed any slowdowns with those filters.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2011
  25. Franklin

    Franklin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,517
    Location:
    West Aussie
    Remember I don't advocate anyone do what I do as I have other security measures in place and actively look for malware and really up to you.

    But when I did have those settings enabled I can't ever remember receiving a warning when I did go to a bad site.

    I used to use Noscript but it's too darn secure in stopping all those lovely fake scan sites cold.

    "useless inbuilt security" - Mozillazine

    Sec.JPG
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.