[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Iceweasel 17.0 problem and solution



Could you please take this offtopic elsewhere? Thanks.

Ondřej Surý

On 30. 11. 2012, at 7:46, Mikko Lehtinen <miihkali.lehtinen@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 2012/11/29 dE . <de.techno@gmail.com>
>> 
>>> On 11/28/12 15:17, Mikko Lehtinen wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> I had big problems with Iceweasel 17.0 I installed from the Backports. I'm on Debian Squeeze XFCE.
>>> 
>>> After installing, the Iceweasel felt very slow and slightly buggy. It often slowed down all my other programs, like the terminal emulator.
>>> 
>>> I received accurate help on this thread:
>>> http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showthread.php?p=75453#post75453
>>> 
>>> Quoting Therem Harth:
>>> 
>>> "For Firefox, you could try creating an integer called
>>> 
>>> toolkit.storage.synchronous
>>> 
>>> in about:config, and setting it to 0. IIRC most of Firefox's problems on Linux are due to repeated fsync() calls, which on Linux mean "Sync everything to the disk RIGHT NOW!"
>>> 
>>> The upshot of setting toolkit.storage.synchronous to 0 is that Firefox should be less of a wallowing pig, but if it crashes you might lose some history entries, or bookmarks added during the session that crashed."
>>> 
>>> The fix worked perfectly. Iceweasel or Firefox has never felt this snappy for me on Linux. Administrating WordPress sites was about three times as fast as before the fix.
>>> 
>>> Therem Harth again:
>>> "IIRC this problem ironically exists because Linux exhibits mostly correct behavior when fsync() is called. I don't know about Windows, but I've read that on OSX, fsync() is does not guarantee that the data is actually written to the disk. I'm not certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if something similar applied to Windows"
>>> 
>>> Could this be fixed somehow? Is it already fixed on Wheezy? For the backports version, it might be enough to just let the user aware of the problem and the solution.
>>> 
>>> Mikko Lehtinen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I remember, that fsync problem was solved with FF4 --
> 2012/11/30 Mikko Lehtinen <miihkali.lehtinen@gmail.com>
>> 
>> Apparently fsync causes problems again, but perhaps it's a different problem...
>> 
>> There was another comment on my thread at http://angband.oook.cz by AnonymousHero:
>> "I believe a workaround for this pathological behavior was added in the EXT4 at some point, but I'm not 100% certain."
>> 
>> I'm still at EXT 3. I will soon install Slackware 14 and EXT 4 on another computer, I'll report on how Firefox feels there. Slack's Firefox is probably almost identical to the upstream version.
> 
> Ah, there was a comment about this on the Mozilla's bug discussion thread:
> 
> "Cameron Simpson 2008-05-13 16:32:01 PDT
> 
> Regarding comment #37 and comment comment #39, I understand ext3 is
> particularly bad with fsync(), doing a whole filesystem sync instead
> of just the file in question. Which is appalling, and not firefox's
> fault. I would expect XFS to get this right (just the file's dirty
> blocks, thanks) but cannot test that just now. You could ask Dave
> Chinner for an authoritative answer."
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-backports-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: CAHp61vs8n1FuVWJZ_JtmmsW3ef-JPr+qD6JxxPZ8u5RG6iFGRw@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAHp61vs8n1FuVWJZ_JtmmsW3ef-JPr+qD6JxxPZ8u5RG6iFGRw@mail.gmail.com
> 


Reply to: