Performance issues

Post a reply

Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Performance issues

Re: Performance issues

by therube » Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:02 pm

Do you have a different computer (lessor or greater) that you can test on?
Copy existing Profile, in its entirety (should work just as well as any method), onto the different computer.
(Or create a new Profile, install only NoScript, then Import your 100K list.)

Have FF 66 open that Profile.

What results do you get with that?
A small delay or are you back to 12 seconds?

Re: Performance issues

by test836 » Sun Mar 24, 2019 10:53 am

Sorry, but I see no difference between 65 & 66 (using the 100K list).
So do I. No difference :(

Re: Performance issues

by therube » Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:27 am

Sorry, but I see no difference between... hmm... wonder if anything did actually change on the NoScript end?

Well, simply by copying the 65 "upgraded" to 66 Profile into a new directory, then opening that with 65...
And looking at new 65 Profile...

Sorry, but I see no difference between 65 & 66 (using the 100K list).
Likewise, on my lessor machine, I see nowhere near the delay that the OP is getting.

So...


NoScript already used storage-sync.sqlite as it was...
I'm thinking these changes made to 66 didn't really affect NoScript?
Yes, I'm thinking that is right - NoScript is totally unaffected by these "storage" changes implemented for FF 66.
Oh... wait a minute...
Well it does set up in /storage/ (something like, moz-extension+++31f7607b-daed-498e-a03e-34b10111d853^userContextId=4294967295) [I wonder if userContextId is used for tracking?] but it's (essentially) empty (as in no real data ends up there), is irrelevant to NoScript.

Re: Performance issues

by musonius » Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:36 am

I imported the sites of Peter Lowe's list of ad and tracking servers as UNTRUSTED sites last summer and this made Firefox quite slow. Some pages needed seconds to be loaded, but it was still not that slow as reported here.

To test, if there is an improvement in Firefox 66, I have done that again now and the performance issues seem to be mostly gone (file "noscript_data.txt" is about 80 KB). It's just a little bit slower than before and there is a slight delay when I swith tabs in the NoScript options page. I am curious, if updating to Firefox 66 helps you.

I am currently using Firefox 66 and NoScript 10.2.4.

Re: Performance issues

by barbaz » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:57 pm

If you're planning to upgrade to Firefox 66, please let us know if that makes any difference. It changes the way WebExtensions storage is handled - viewtopic.php?f=18&t=25102

Re: Performance issues

by test836 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:18 pm

It doesn't help :(

Re: Performance issues

by therube » Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:29 am

Disable hardware acceleration & see if that makes any difference?
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/ha ... inds-crash

Re: Performance issues

by test836 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:45 am

barbaz wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:19 pm Either there's some Windows-specific issue here, or you've got some external app(s) (antivirus maybe?) that's slowing your Firefox down.
There is no any external app or antiviruses.
I also tried it in clear VMware with nothing installed except Firefox and I have the same result. :(

Re: Performance issues

by barbaz » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:19 pm

test836 wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:01 pm I use the same versions with new FF profile and my settins and my delay is 12 seconds stable.

specs of my computer:
CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 3.4 Ghz
RAM: 16 GB
SSD: Samsung SSD 840 PRO
Ok, now I really don't understand. Your computer should be significantly faster than mine.

Either there's some Windows-specific issue here, or you've got some external app(s) (antivirus maybe?) that's slowing your Firefox down.


EDIT
Based on CPU speed spec difference alone, making some assumptions, and using my results as a baseline, I would estimate that the delays on your end "should not" be noticeably longer than up to 3 seconds. And that number doesn't account for you having a SSD vs me having a hard disk.

Re: Performance issues

by test836 » Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:01 pm

barbaz wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:00 pm So to be clear, you're saying this happened when you changed from NoScript Classic to NoScript 10.x, *not* from a change between 10.x versions?
Yes.

therube wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:35 pm Yes, in your list, it shows as allowed.
But if you visit the site, it is not.
airfrance.com:
https = allowed
http = disallowed (not presented in my settings file)
It's not a problem cause I use https.
But I have another issue.
barbaz wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:15 pm Firefox 65.0.2, NoScript 10.2.2rc4, new profile + imported test836's NoScript settings file: about 2-4 seconds delay on my end.
@test836, can you please post the specs of your computer?
I use the same versions with new FF profile and my settins and my delay is 12 seconds stable.

specs of my computer:
CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 3.4 Ghz
RAM: 16 GB
SSD: Samsung SSD 840 PRO

Re: Performance issues

by therube » Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:21 am

Yes, in your list, it shows as allowed.
But if you visit the site, it is not.
The first time I looked, that is what I saw.
Starting over again, it was Allowed as expected.
Don't know why the difference?

Re: Performance issues

by barbaz » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:15 pm

therube wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:35 pm
this happened when you changed from NoScript Classic to NoScript 10.x, *not* from a change between 10.x versions?
Heh, I think you've got it ;-).
Then never mind about testing for regression.

Firefox 65.0.2, NoScript 10.2.2rc4, new profile + imported test836's NoScript settings file: about 2-4 seconds delay on my end.

@test836, can you please post the specs of your computer?

Re: Performance issues

by therube » Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:35 pm

airfrance.com does not get Allowed?
Yes, in your list, it shows as allowed.
But if you visit the site, it is not.
this happened when you changed from NoScript Classic to NoScript 10.x, *not* from a change between 10.x versions?
Heh, I think you've got it ;-).

Re: Performance issues

by barbaz » Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:00 pm

test836 wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:49 pm I can't tell you the certain NoScript version, but I definitely know that issue started after moving to WebExtension-version, when Firefox blocked old-style addons and forced to use WebExtension.
So to be clear, you're saying this happened when you changed from NoScript Classic to NoScript 10.x, *not* from a change between 10.x versions?

Re: Performance issues

by test836 » Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:56 pm

therube wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:42 pm A bit slow.
Nowhere near the delay you're reporting.

airfrance.com does not get Allowed?
(airfrance.ru does.)

Any rhyme or reason to the layout of the file?
As in should the lists be sorted? Does that matter? How does http vs https come in to play?
Sorry but I can't understand you about airfrance (in my file it is both allowed: com and ru).
I didn't changed anything in this file manually.
I just exported it and posted it as is.
I also do not care about http-https, because I enable-disable domains manually on every site I trust when visit it.

Top