Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

Random foolishness about Firefox.

Here you can discuss every aspect of Debian. Note: not for support requests!
Message
Author
Deb-fan
Posts: 1047
Joined: 2012-08-14 12:27
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

#21 Post by Deb-fan »

Here's another random about:config setting. Disabling images ... obvious intent here is speed. Times when someone just wants "the facts, just the facts ma'am". :D Have been on high priced and limited bandwidth mobile hotspots too of course. Again clear idea here is less stuff downloading, less BW = increased speed.

No doubt are FF extensions which allow someone to easily toggle this type of thing. Usually take that route but wanted to see what about:config lines those extensions fiddle with under the hood to do whatever it is they do. So trying this one, note haven't played with this particular thing overly much either. So taking it for a test drive as to how it's likely to work out and whether useful to me or not in future. Anyway ... it's

Code: Select all

permissions.default.image
Default 1, yes normal images. (default)
Set to a value of 2, no images.
Plus all lines in about:config settings have a reset option, which resets them as they were default.

Also noted am considering alternatives to Noscript, I still like it and hey, it makes what it does easy but it's also becoming annoying to me and seemingly getting too big for it's britches. Mentioned the failed webpg downloads when it's running sometimes. Which of course is unacceptable and will be extremely irritated if at some point in time, I went to save something that was really interesting to me and later, oops, nope Noscript = failed, I don't have the info I wanted. :( So mayhaps ascertain which about:config settings are relevant and make a script to easily toggle the things.
Most powerful FREE tech-support tool on the planet * HERE. *

Deb-fan
Posts: 1047
Joined: 2012-08-14 12:27
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

#22 Post by Deb-fan »

Afterthought and related nonsense. This also seems like a fine job for Mozilla's profile manager in FF, it's extremely easy to setup specific task profiles and switch between them, can have them launched in a menu/sub-menu, via panel or desktop launcher, terminal ( or run dialogue) or with keybind anyway.

By way of example this is my keybind to launch FF in Openbox's rc.xml file.

Code: Select all

    <keybind key="Control-Up">
      <action name="Execute">
        <startupnotify>
          <enabled>true</enabled>
          <name>Browser</name>
        </startupnotify>
        <command>/home/myusername/.browser/firefox/firefox -p "firefox"</command>
      </action>
    </keybind>
Above there, that's the full path to the firefox binary I keep stashed in my users /home directory. This part -p "firefox" is the one which tells Firefox to launch using the profile named firefox, when I hit the keybind Control + the Up arrow key.
Most powerful FREE tech-support tool on the planet * HERE. *

Deb-fan
Posts: 1047
Joined: 2012-08-14 12:27
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

#23 Post by Deb-fan »

One more brainfart as to using the BBR congestion control algo. Supposedly it's very well backed by Google Inc and have seen mentions that using it can provide a boost while using their services. ie: Youtube: Think est was all of a 4% or so though. Still if that's correct 4% is still 4%. Outside of that, BBR is only another congest algo which uses different metrics other than packet loss-etc to attempt to get the best throughput in a given network setting.

Yep, still playing with it for time being. Thing seems to be working well and about to watch a YT movie, shrugs. Not like it's hard to switch the things regardless. Lights, YT ... action ! :)
Most powerful FREE tech-support tool on the planet * HERE. *

User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
Posts: 14114
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: London, England
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

#24 Post by Head_on_a_Stick »

Deb-fan wrote:BBR congestion control algo
OK, I'll try one more time...

That algorithm is for controlling traffic attempting to download data from your computer, it has absolutely no effect on the data you are trying to pull from the internet for browsing, etc. It is only beneficial if you're running some sort of server from your machine and even then it is only useful for other people who are trying to access it.
deadbang

Deb-fan
Posts: 1047
Joined: 2012-08-14 12:27
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

#25 Post by Deb-fan »

Hey cool ... will be good to hear what you think about it. As for me, mentioned definitely no adverse effect from using it. Also despite mucho research into the topic of congestion control, maybe missed something. The nature of a/ny congestion control algo is analyzing and adjusting for network congestion and other factors to ensure the best throughput on any network. My understanding again is that BBR only uses different metrics in doing so, Bottleneck, bandwidth and RTT = BBR vs more conventional algo's such as Cubic which do so adjusting to packet loss and etc. Some are notably more aggressive in fighting for their share of avail bandwidth, some designed for a specific network situation ie: Veno ... designed for lossy/wifi connections. Which Cubic has been found to be a good all around general for this purpose. If people are inclined could check out alternatives which may better fit their use-case.

At the moment with my network/connection situation. Any real meaningful testing is out of question, will or may get around to it when situation permits. Which just based off the performance I'm getting under these less than ideal circumstances. This thing is going to blaze it's cyber-arse off once get a solid and dependable connect. Though will have to do some tweakage and adjustments to fit such. Anyway, not going to attempt to post a gettysburg address on the topic. Spent mucho time/effort and don't even so much feel qualified but anyone interested is definitely free to do their own research and review whatever data on the topic.
Misc FF tweak: Running the 32bit version on a 64bit OS, this would be with a goal of getting the thing somewhat lighter (RAM overhead) while may come with a somewhat trade-off in terms of speed. Though honestly doubt it'll be much of anything noticeable and with correct tweakage otherwise applied have always found FF to be better in many respects vs as it comes out-of-box, shrugs. I always get FF directly from Mozilla. Though multi-arch is fully within any Debian OS's abilities and specifying/installing for a given arch easy peasy for apt/itude. :)
Just 4 record, am atm running and booted into a 64bit Buster install on which I just went ahead and setup the 64bit gnu/Nix version from Mozilla. Really not even inclined to download, setup and side-by-side the 32b vs it's 64b counterpart though. Am lazy, OS boot idles @ less than 150mbs-ram on an old laptop with 4gb total. I'm not hurting for memory head room, so not going to invest the time seeing how much difference it makes. :)
Most powerful FREE tech-support tool on the planet * HERE. *

Deb-fan
Posts: 1047
Joined: 2012-08-14 12:27
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

#26 Post by Deb-fan »

AHHHHH dammit, why da heel did I go and even mention this ?!?!?!?! D:

The resource miser is saying, oh come on dude, it'll only take a hour or less to check it out. Lmao ... SHUT UP !!! SHUT UP, SHUT IT, QUIETTTTTT ! I wanna watch a movie ! :D
PS, also just 4 record: This type of thing could also be selectively applied to varied system components too, though web browsers are an obvious good candidate(s.) Vaguely recall some 64bit software known for using 40% more RAM as compared to their 32bit versions. Slapping this up as a just cuz and footnote. Should you or I ever feel like really messing with such extensively. Not hurting here in terms of system overhead by any stretch anyway, shrugs and 32bit support is somewhat on the ropes, though sure it'll hang around for quite awhile yet. With that ... it's movie time fellow nixers. :)
Most powerful FREE tech-support tool on the planet * HERE. *

quinton77
Posts: 2
Joined: 2019-05-23 05:31

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

#27 Post by quinton77 »

Point of this pointless thread is just that I'm surprised at the 8 content processes FF now apparently comes with. It tells you right by the relevant control in settings, content processes may improve performance when using many tabs but add to memory etc blahblah. I have the RAM to spare anyway, I just don't want to waste it on something I don't feel is worthwhile to me. I mean there are extensions that will "suspend" tabs which aren't being used but believe that basically means they get dropped and reloaded mostly when someone clicks back to them. Though whatever is kept in FF's cache should come into play and not have to be re-downloaded, could depend on the expires headers on the site involved ... shrugs. https://tradevenue.se/

Deb-fan
Posts: 1047
Joined: 2012-08-14 12:27
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

#28 Post by Deb-fan »

Sorry fellas, lose track of these, have browser threads scattered far and wide and tend get burnt out on gnu/nix foruming thus drop off for long periods. At quinton77 couldn't have said it better. My general rule now is 1 content process per core on the system. That's only my take on best practice though. Also yep due to incorrectly set expires headers etc have seen it stated much of what's in the browser cache never gets reused anyway. My understanding of extensions which suspend tabs is the same as yours, that they're mostly redownloaded anyway, hopefully cache does kickin though. Shouldn't have to be totally done again.

Such extensions can still have a good place imo as the amount of system resources browsers use nowadays is ridiculous. I outright eliminate or adjust a bunch of such things in about:config. Guy above if asking about how to adjust the number of content processes, it's in Firefox's actual settings, go to Edit in FF toolbar, then select Preferences, it's under the General settings, says Performance, there's a box that's checked by default ... Use recommended performance settings, uncheck that and someone can choose the # of content processes they want.

Oops edit, the other poster either deleted own post or got canned as spam. :)
Most powerful FREE tech-support tool on the planet * HERE. *

Post Reply