Wouldn’t be the first time google/chrome have actively hindered extension developers.Ĭan anyone with more insight into the chrome code base comment on this? Giving adblock a bad reputation of causing performance issues. I can’t help it to speculate if this was by design. The amount of cpu use caused by adblock is unacceptable.ĭue to how chrome works now, after the update, will cause several tabs in the same process and even sometimes the whole browser to hang up for a few seconds.īased on how much google wants to block adblock extensions.
ADBLOCK FIREFOX PLUS
I’ve been having huge problems with performance on chrome since a few chrome updates ago.Īdblock plus does indeed use more memory:īut my issue with ram consumption is second priority to performance. I did a little check with the latest Chrome canary build. You can even change it to bind to the external interface and point other machines in your home at it fairly trivially. Ubuntu even uses one by default, where you can add new rules to the default config. There are a number of DNS cachers out there to improve performance. I just type in the name of the company myself instead. The advantage this has over host file is the wildcarding, and of course that it works for all machines on the domain.ĭid this years ago, and haven’t noticed any significant impact, apart from those times I actually try to click on a google ad and google sees fit to send it through doubleclick. I sorted them by domain w/ awk | sort | uniq -c | sort -n then took the offenders w/ the highest cookie counts and did something like: I was shocked at just how many cookies where in the cookie jar. Years ago, I looked at the machine of someone in the family, where, unlike me, there was no cookie whitelisting. In particular, if you hear people complaining about Firefox’s memory usage, one of the first questions to ask is whether they have ABP installed. In the meantime, it’s worth keeping these measurements in mind.
ADBLOCK FIREFOX HOW TO
I hope that the ABP authors can work with us to reduce this overhead, though I’m not aware of any clear ideas on how to do so.
But if you’re using a low-end machine without much memory, you might have different priorities.
Many people (including me!) will be happy with this trade-off - they will gladly use extra memory in order to block ads. So, it’s clear that ABP greatly increases Firefox’s memory usage. Unsurprisingly, the page also loads more slowly with ABP enabled. This is despite the fact that ABP prevents some page elements (ads!) from being loaded.Īn even more extreme example is this page, which contains over 400 iframes. With ABP, that number more than doubles, to 417 MiB.
For example, if I load TechCrunch and roll over the social buttons on every story (thus triggering the loading of lots of extra JS code), without ABP, Firefox uses about 194 MiB of physical memory. Many pages have multiple iframes, so this can add up quickly. Second, there’s an overhead of about 4 MiB per iframe, which is mostly due to ABP injecting a giant stylesheet into every iframe. (This is on 64-bit builds on 32-bit builds the number is probably a bit smaller.) This appears to be mostly due to additional JavaScript memory usage, though there’s also some due to extra layout memory. I have happily used it myself for years - whenever I use a browser that doesn’t have an ad blocker installed I’m always horrified by the number of ads there are on the web.īut we recently learned that ABP can greatly increase the amount of memory used by Firefox.įirst, there’s a constant overhead just from enabling ABP of something like 60–70 MiB. AMO says that it has almost 19 million users, which is almost triple the number of the second most popular add-on. AdBlock Plus (ABP) is the most popular add-on for Firefox.
0 kommentar(er)
