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. sweater

    sweater Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,674
    Location:
    Philippines, the Political Dynasty Capital of the
    Maybe I just forgot.

    How can I reduce the memory consumptions of my Firefox browser, it v3.6.13. Sometimes memory print goes to 105,000k

    What add-ons on it do you think adds up to high memory consumptions and probably could slow down the net surfing speed?
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Boyfriend

    Boyfriend Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Posts:
    1,070
    Location:
    Pakistan
    There are several tricks and tips. You can simply use CleanMem to free up RAM without affecting processes stability.
     
  3. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    A browser consuming up to even ~300MB is kind of normal. 100MB is actually low memory consumption.
    Cleaning/freeing/defragmenting RAM is a hoax. It doesn't do anything beneficial for the performance of the system.
     
  4. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Not if you've tried CleanMem.
     
  5. sweater

    sweater Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,674
    Location:
    Philippines, the Political Dynasty Capital of the
    ah, ok. ;)

    Actually, I already have TuneUp Utilities installed...so I was hesitant if still I ever need those RAM freeing/defrag tool.

    Memory consumptions is now up to 130,700. But as you said it's still normal, then I'll just accept it as it is.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2011
  6. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    I don't have to try it to know it's snake oil. When it comes to memory management the operating system knows best.
     
  7. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    You won't know until you try. That's a fact.
     
  8. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    I don't really need to try such programs if I already have an idea how the Windows memory manager works, what it does and why it does it that very way. Of course if you really believe that the people at Microsoft don't know their own operating system and that some other small author has a better understanding of how the Windows kernel actually works, then by all means use such a program.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2011
  9. Boyfriend

    Boyfriend Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Posts:
    1,070
    Location:
    Pakistan
    CleanMem works differently. It calls OS own APIs with parameters and rest of whole work is done by OS own memory manager. It is just like cleaning free memory (without pushing data to page file) on-demand. Other memory manager try to free RAM at cost of page file. Try yourself and then report here.
     
  10. Baldrick

    Baldrick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    South Wales, UK
    Completely agree with Boyfriend. Have used Cleanmem for a number of years and it works brilliantly...no massive reductions in memory usage but just keeps a lid on memory misuse, leaks & the likes. Set it up, schedule it to run as often as you like...and then simply forget.

    Simples! ;)
     
  11. nikanthpromod

    nikanthpromod Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Posts:
    1,369
    Location:
    India
    there is an addon called memory fox. try it. It might help u:)
     
  12. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    Just because CleanMem isn't a typical memory cleaner/optimizer doesn't mean it's actually doing something worthwhile.
    The explanation on CleanMem's website is actually quite vague as to what it actually does. Cleaning memory? What does that actually mean? Zeroing free pages from memory?
    If the program indeed doesn't cause disk I/O, then it must be ejecting pages from each process' working set and putting those pages in the standby page list. From what I see on my system it is quite possibly exactly what it does. Windows does it too actually, just not so aggressively.

    Whenever a process starts it touches all of its needed virtual memory which causes it it get loaded into the RAM and become its working set. With time Windows automatically trims this working set and ejects some of the pages. If a page has been modified during its stay in the RAM it gets moved to the modified page list. These pages contain data that has to be written back to the hard drive (either to a regular file or to the pagefile) before they can be moved to the standby page list. This isn't done all the time but only when the list grows beyond a certain point or if the zeroed and standby lists become too small.
    If a page hasn't been modified then it gets moved directly to the standby page list. These pages are still associated with their respective processes but are not included in their working sets. They can be very qucikly re-assigned back to their processes but they could be given to another process, should the need arise. These pages are for all intents and purposes available memory.
    With time pages from the standby page list get moved to the free page list which is considered officially free memory and will be used if a process needs more memory.
    Again with time the zero page thread keeps zeroing the free pages and moving them to the zero page list.

    Whenever a process demands more memory the memory manager checks the free and zeroed page lists first, and not the standby page list. The last contains pages that are still associated with their processes and could be recalled soon. However if the zero and free page lists are empty then the memory manager will begin giving away the standby pages starting with oldest oldest ones.

    If there is some memory hungry process and the free, zero and standby lists are all empty Windows will begin flushing pages from the modified page list and even taking away pages from the working sets as a last resort. However even if there isn't such a process flushing of modified pages will still occur if they reach a certain number or if the zeroed pages drop below a certain threshold.
    Because the memory manager goes to the standby page list first before trying to flush modified pages it would seem beneficial to have more standby pages at the ready which is what CleanMem does as I see, so if it just so happens that there is a sudden high demand for memory by some process then those additional standby pages would come in handy. However for Windows to have to give away standby pages the zeroed pages must be none which will trigger flushing of modified pages anyway which would result in disk I/O.
    And even if forget about that, after a rather forceful working set trimming the process might not reclaim all of its pages as it might not need them at that exact moment. Still this doesn't mean it wouldn't need them in a very short while but if they had been moved to the standby page list and then given away to another process (zeroed first of course) then when the trimmed process decides to get its data back it won't find it and would have to issue a disk I/O.

    Again: Windows also trims the working sets but not so aggresively.

    In short: Windows is already trying to optimize its memory usage. It doesn't need additional optimizers for its own optimization. It's already designed for optimal performance. It has complete control over the physical memory and what gets put there. The actually bad memory leaks are the virtual memory leaks that occur in a process' private bytes. That's where Windows doesn't have control and if a memory leak occurs it could crash the program or even the system.

    Interestingly enough, the author of CleanMem claims the real experts are the Windows programmers, yet he still feels the need to correct their work. Kind of ironic.

    But if you really need such placebo programs to have your peace-of-mind, then use them. It's not like such tools are going away. Tons of people still clean the registry, use 3rd party defragmenters for their system drive under Windows Vista/7, clean the prefetch (XP), disable SuperFetch (Vista/7), etc. "Optimization" programs is here to stay because the masses are just too ready to believe they need them and need just a little nudge to start using them. It's sad really.

    It's superstition versus logic, and we all know what wins in the end. :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2011
  13. Robin A.

    Robin A. Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Posts:
    2,279
    As long as it does not affect other programs running simultaneously, memory usage is totally irrelevant to me. I use Chrome 10, it is currently using about 400MB (16 processes), everything is ok.
     
  14. ALookingInView

    ALookingInView Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Posts:
    365
    This. Memory micromanagement in 2011 seems mental.
     
  15. Bambo

    Bambo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Posts:
    194
    As long as program is stable and free who cares? In the world of optimization programs and forum tricks this is harmless :) I bet you can still find payware doing the "typical" memory cleaning - on popular download sites even.

    But if 100mb usage for Firefox is alarming and must be dealt with it is time to read this http://lifehacker.com/5033518/debunking-common-windows-performance-tweaking-myths and this is on Lifehacker who does not hold back on tweaking tips. Recently they posted a complete nonsense article about just Firefox vs. speed/memory http://lifehacker.com/5687850/speed-up-firefox-by-moving-your-cache-to-ram-no-ram-disk-required I see a Mozilla dude has corrected them, nice they post voice of common sense and stuff any idiot could have looked up! - no change to article though ;) Take small steps when seeing claims of boosting, tweaking and whatever sell tickets.
     
  16. Baldrick

    Baldrick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    South Wales, UK
    I think that you miss the point with CleanMem...it complements Windows rather than attempting to replace anything it does...and in my experience it does save or reclaim some RAM. Not a lot but every little helps as good as Windows & is it is not, and never will be, perfect. It is stable, unobtrusive and does IMHO help.

    :D
     
  17. Bambo

    Bambo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Posts:
    194
    No smoke without a fire ;) I seem to remember some who said anyone not loving and having full understanding for Superfetch on Vista anno 2006 were a moron. Why make Vista work like Xpo_O Look it up on Technet dummy etc. etc. Somehow it just works so much better on Windows 7, heh. Now it has changed, is less aggressive, more intelligent, runs smoother, overall less hd thrashing - everyone is happy. I guess also the morons from 2006. Still called Superfetch but development take place all the time. Also be skeptical towards boring default settings and MS approved opinions.
     
  18. GlobalForce

    GlobalForce Regular Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Posts:
    3,581
    Location:
    Garden State, USA
  19. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    And I think you didn't understand how memory manager works. Let me repeat the conclusion: Windows is already trying to optimize its memory usage. It doesn't need additional optimizers for its own optimization. It's already designed for optimal performance.
    In other words: Windows doesn't need anything complementing its memory manager.
     
  20. Baldrick

    Baldrick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    South Wales, UK
    And I think that I do...thank you! I am also going by what I see in terms of the effect of CleanMem on my systems so please don't lecture. We all have a right to our opinions and mine is that CleanMem makes a worthwhile difference. In the end it is for the likes of sweater (who started this thread) to make up his own mind based on what he reads in threads like these.

    BTW...just because Windows tries to optimise does not necessarily mean that it succeeds all of the time...and therefore does not need help.
     
  21. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    Reduce memory in Firefox


    Fasterfox Lite
     
  22. dantz

    dantz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Posts:
    991
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Night Raven, thanks for your informative posts on Windows memory management.
     
  23. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    May I have a link?

    It's true that the built-in defragger is more sluggish but considering defragmentation needn't be done more than a few times a year it kind of makes it a moot point.

    If you think that then you don't really know what the Prefetcher does and what it is for. Its job is to decrease Windows and application loading times by using asynchrnous reading of the hard drive to load the necessary data as quickly as possible while booting the computer.
    It's not about what Microsoft thinks is best but what gets launched at or shortly after the computer boot, and that depends on the user. It's not Microsoft that installs Skype, TuneUp, some antivirus software, etc. the user does that.

    SuperFetch is based on the Prefetcher. Its job is to apply the same principle to the entire work day/week. It monitors what gets launched at what time of day and week and loads the required files/data in advance so that when the time comes it's already in the RAM. The idea isn't to just consume memory for the heck of it. The idea is to be able to launch the user's applications by adapting to his/her habits.

    I for one care a great deal about my system's performance. That's why I use very few security applications/methods for example, but choose them wisely so that I still get good security without sacrificing performance. That's also why I've informed myself as much as possible how Windows works, what affects the system's performance and how it affects it.

    When optimization is concerned I'd say less is more. But if someone is happier with the placebo/lie, who am I to burst his/her bubble.
     
  24. SMC1979

    SMC1979 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Posts:
    12
    From CleanMems page
    http://www.pcwintech.com/cleanmem

    And to Night_Raven, no I will not get into a debate over how my CleanMem program is snake oil or not.

    As you have seen users who try it have had success with it.

    The trick to cleanmem is not the programs using less memory. The trick is keeping windows from using the page file on the hard drive.

    So yell snake oil all you want. How someone has the balls to shoot down a free program without touching it is no different than the people who use to jail people who said the earth isn't flat :p

    The standby, or system cache, or memory cache or what ever you want to call it stays in memory. Memory is FAR faster than the hard drive.

    Lets say I have a memory leak in a program. All that memory will be pushed to standby. If it needs it back it has it, instantly. Anything it doesn't ask for back gets freed up to the system.

    Thats it, no magic, no nothing. This is how Windows handles it, Windows is doing all the work.

    My mentor wrote books for Microsoft and beat it into my head how important it was for a programmer to clean up after himself in code.

    Windows will only handle memory cleanup when it needs to and not till then. Other wise it is up the programmers to get their code clean.

    If Windows handle memory perfectly like you think then there would be no such thing as memory leaks. Cleanmem is simply giving the user to option to have windows do its job instead of waiting for the memory to be used up before windows kicks in.

    As I said, this is a war no one is going to win and that I will not fight with. You have so called memory experts calling foul every time they even hear cleanmem.

    I am NOT a memory expert. I go by what I was taught, and by RESULTS.

    I will not fight to the death for cleanmem. It comes down to this,
    Try it, it helps? good! It doesn't help? get rid of it. No harm done.

    So if I wont fight over cleanmem then why am I posting here?

    To make both sides, those for and against cleanmem understand how it works.

    I think the fire over this comes from people says cleanmem itself makes the system faster, which in turn ticks the crap off of people who know that just because a program uses less memory doesn't make it faster.

    It all comes down to trying to keep windows from using the hard drive. The bottle neck of every system.

    That was the whole reason I made it for my customers in the first place.

    -Shane
     
  25. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    This just goes to show that you didn't actually read my posts. I *did* try the program and saw what it does. All you did is simply quote the program's website and then repeat a few of the quoted things below the quote as well. I still see no techincal explanation as to how forcibly pushing more pages than needed at the time to the standby page list helps to reduce writing to the hard drive.

    A more efficient way of keeping more memory available for applications would be to chose one's software wisely and to not allow a lot of useless processes to remain resident. Autoruns can be used to check what get's started and simply disable the unneeded stuff.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.