I came across this site just now. It's got a number of links on it to test the effectiveness of any ad blocker you may have on your system. It's quite illuminating. https://pi-hole.net/pages-to-test-ad-blocking-performance/
visited just an hour ago for other purpose. while discussion about pi-hole this one came on: https://github.com/pi-hole/pi-hole/wiki/Customising-sources-for-ad-lists those lists and more and enabled here, my blocklist is > 200.000 and not "> 100.000" like pi-hole
Fun fact, blocking ADs can actually slow down your browsing experience, since the more filters you have, the longer it takes to evaluate the webpage and that process also takes CPU/RAM.
Same here. If webpages want me to view ads then they have to take responsiblity for content and ensure there is no malware.
Interested in how you come to this conclusion. Any tests on CPU/Memory wise with and without adblocker? My experience tells me otherwise
I also have similar experience. I guess that in my case processing all requests takes much less time than downloading all adds.
Code: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/page-load-time/fploionmjgeclbkemipmkogoaohcdbig It is particularly noticeable on laptops (lagging music/videos). I block only tracking/flash, but I like ADs, besides they load after the webpage is already loaded, so they do not cause slowdown.
Interesting. I really wanted to test this. Can you give me an example of video/music site, where you see the issue? And can you give me your browser config like which adblocker/script blocker? I think it is incorrect. Most of the ads/trackers and other nuisance scripts, load as part of web page onload event. What i meant, those third party scripts, are defined to load during Website's page load. Unless, they are configured to load, during other events, like page scroll.. If you wish to block only trackers, and other annoyance elements, i think you can configure to block as such, which should reduce much of the ad-blocker processing. For Example, in uBO, you can disable cosmetic filtering, and register tracker and annoyance scripts. I believe, you can configure similarly with other extensions too.
I visit webpages with tons of ADs, I like to support them that way as well and even without scrolling, the ADs load afterwards, I can read or interact with the webpage in the meantime. uBO blocks ADs no matter what filters I use, I find it annoying. I wanted to use it, because adguard does not have a filter to block coinminers I meant like watching youtube video (or a movie in the computer) and opening other webpages in tabs. Of course, the more powerful computer, the more unlikely, that you will notice the issue, but you can simply watch CPU history of the relevant processes. I have not tested it for a while, last time blocking ADs it took like 5-6 secs to load a webpage, without blocking only 1-2 secs. Basically only AdGuard with Malware/Spyware/EasyPrivacy/Annoyances filters, plus OpenDNS Family.
Same here. I am not using a true adblocker for blocking ads but with NoScript and even when I used them, the plus difference in favor of blocking ads is easy to tell as is large. Bo
It's just matter of looking at logger and see which filter list to disable. Or you can disable all default filter lists and enable annoyance/spyware/tracker filter lists. Similar to Adguard. Something is definitely not right in your case. Maybe you want to recheck and see if this is the case still and report it here? I will test youtube site once i go back to home. My Laptop has 4th gen Intel I5-4200M processor, and i absolutely do not see any lag issues with movies streaming either on Firefox or Chrome. Below is quick and dirty test in FF V57.0.4 for boston.com. Code: site with uBO with out boston.com 1st run: 2.02 sec 1st run: 7.72 sec 2nd run: 1.69 sec 2nd run: 4.54 sec Yes. Because, today's browsers, tries to be responsive as fast as possible, to have user interaction, once main content is rendered.
[QUOTE="TairikuOkami, post: 2737810, member: 39251" uBO blocks ADs no matter what filters I use, I find it annoying. I wanted to use it, because adguard does not have a filter to block coinminers [/QUOTE] Adblock blocks coin miners. It's part of the default English filter.
the purpose of pi-hole.net is use filter list network-wide (modem/router -> pi -> LAN) and not local for browsers. using as an unbound service with such lists is much faster than firefox+ uBlock. IMO there is less to discuss or compare. maybe to examine how many lists can be used because this would improve the filter.
Useful site, thx! It should be noted cosmetic filters don't enhance speed in any way, they just adds overhead. Especially generic cosmetic rule is bad performance wise. The number of rules doesn't necessarily reflect overhead i.e. 10 specific rules can be faster than 1 generic rule. Also regular expression should be avoided as much as possible. Tho uBlock has options to disable cosmetic filter or only generic, I personally use "Easylist without element hiding rules" filter, as Easylist include many cosmetic while other filters I subscribe don't. Needless to say, the best way is default-deny and I do it too.
I loaded this page: http://bidace.com/150.html And though it is terribly broken (what a bizarre page), I did manage to block over 100 things.
If you set up Pi-hole, all the work is done in a Raspberry Pi used as a local DNS server on a LAN and the client computers with their browsers and adblocking will get almost no work. I've got one on my LAN but the actual black holing is done in the cloud on a VPS running Unbound with a modified version of Pi-hole that updates its lists with a crontab once every 24 hours. Running a local caching DNS server will not just speed things up by blocking ads, it will gain much more speed by reducing the latency of most DNS queries from several hundred milliseconds to under 10. Linux is a wonderful thing.
I recently feel the situation is changing, as ads company are trying to evade ad blockers and more and more sites are shifting to https. Currently, domain level blocking is still effective but this rate will just keep falling. Injecting javascript or fine grained control is often required to circumvent anti-adblock or evasion while https://example-contents-you-need.com/ads/ can only be blocked via MITM or browser/addons.